MIASS 617

NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a

case study of the Obasanjo
regime (1999-2007)

NIGERIAN DEFENCE ACADEMY PG SCHOOL

SYNDICATE ONE
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

SYNDICATE MEMBERS

I. Odum D.I (Syndicate Leader) 08035995501

II. Ibrahim Yusuf Mohammed 08035962422
III. Izegae Egbe Ebun 08033110221
IV. Nyam Shunom 08065322225
V. Adeniyi Yetunde 08035614136
VI. Onu Ocheje Adamu 08036607556
VII. Atuma Ernest 08036241797
VIII. Emmanuel Okoli 08038298750
IX. Angela Gani 08054058135
X. Suleiman Mohammed Jamiu 08036945655
XI.

1.0 What is policy?

2|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

As much as there are different scholars of policy out there, there are different views to what
policy means or the definition of policy, But for the purpose of this presentation and time, we shall
look at the views of a couple of scholars.
Ladipo (1985) defines policy as “a course setting involving decisions of the wildest
ramifications and longest time perspective in the life of an organization“. A.S Hornsby went further to
say that “a policy is a plan action, statement of aims and deals made by a government, political party,
business company and so on”. According to Holsti (1972: 21) a policy is the decision that defines
goals, set precedents or by down causes of action and the actions taken to implement these decisions.
From all of the above definitions of policy we will discover that they all have something’s in
common. They are determined course of action and /or setting of any organization and for which they
aim at, as the ends at any given point in time. This is why Ray Ofoegbu defined it as “a course of
action adopted by a government, group of person etc”.

2.0 Foreign Policy

We should therefore agree that there is no universally acceptable definition of foreign policy,
though many scholars see it as having everything to do with what is to be done about external
matters, diplomacy and how it affects their national interest. Francis Pyn defines foreign policy as
“The projection abroad of a country’s values and aspirations”. While F.S. Northedge and D. vital
define foreign policy as “a product of interaction between internal and external forces”.
Internal forces like political culture and process, political leadership, the state of the economy,
military might and even the well being of the citizenry determine to a great extent the foreign policy
of a particular country.
Foreign policies are designed to promote, protect and defend a nation’s vital interests such as
the preservation of national sovereignty, the defence of territorial integrity, the promotion of
economic, military, strategic and diplomatic interests. To pursue defined vital interest states in the
international system whether rich or poor, small or big, strong or weak, democracies or totalitarian
systems, within or outside established alliances, use various methods and instruments of foreign
policy to influence, and sometimes even dictate the role orientations, objectives and actions of other
states.
Following from the above, let us consider the Nigerian foreign policy from 1999 – 2007.

3.1 Introduction
The broad objective of Nigeria’s foreign policy is to promote and protect the country’s
national interest over which a national interest have clearly emerged. Prominent among these
interests are: (Mbachu, 2008)
a. The defense of the country’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity
/ propinquity.
b. The restoration of human dignity to the black men & women all over the
world.
c. The eradication of colonialism and terminate minority rule from the face of
Africa.
3|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

d. The creation of the relevant political and Economic conditions in Africa and
the rest of the world which will not only facilitate the preservation of the territorial integrity
of all Africa countries, and
e. The Promotion of World peace with Justice.

The conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy relations by numerous Nigerian governments since
Independence in 1960 has been guided by the above principles which have acquired wide
respectability and have almost become permanent and fundamental.
However, the pursuit of Nigerian foreign policy objectives/relations like other State actors rest
on a tripod, namely:
 Defence
 Deference or Recognition by other state Actors or Respect,
 Wealth creation and Economic Prosperity
There are also three (3) stages of relationship with other state actors, namely:
 Co operation stage
 Competition stage and
 Conflict stage
These three stages require different foreign policy posture or approach.

“Nigeria is the most populous single unit in Africa… we are not going to abdicate the position
which God Almighty has placed us… .The whole black continent is looking up to this country to
liberate it from the thraldom”.
Jaja Nwachukwu

In contrast Olayide Aluko views it thus:

“Vast size and population, and abundance of resources do not guarantee in any automatic way
the leadership of this (African) continent. Until we are able to establish a stable political order at
home, industrialize and take – off technologically and improve the quality of life of our people, no
country within and outside Africa will accept our claim to the leadership in Africa seriously except to
flatter us”.
3.2 The Person & Profile of Obasanjo
Kofarmata in 2007 described, President Chief Mathew Okikiola Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo-
So far, as the luckiest Nigerian (Leaving or dead). He is a traditional chief: a five star general; a civil
war hero; a former federal commissioner (minister) and member of federal executive ruling council
under two defunct military regimes, a former second in command under the defunct military
government headed by General Murtala Muhammad, a former Head of state, commander –in-chief
of the Armed Forces of Nigeria (1976 – 1979) after the assassination of General Murtala
Muhammed; one time condemned political prisoner under the defunct military government of
General Sani Abacha, a freed condemned prisoner; a two term Nigerian civilian President,
Commander –in chief, Armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria (1999 – 2007); a national and
international statesman and a successful modern large – scale commercial chicken farmer and
strategic investor, the list is endless.
“Apart from the fact that President Obasanjo enjoys tremendous personal clout abroad” but
also that he continuously seeks to transfer that personal clout into a national, clout. Ogunbiyi (2002)
presented his international profile Thus:

4|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

1983 – 89. Member independent commission of disarmament and security, co-chairman, Common
wealth eminent persons, group on South Africa.
1987 – 93. Director, Better world society, Washington DC.
1988 – 99. Member board of trustees, Ford foundation.
1989 – 99. Advisory panel, United Nations World conference on women and development, etc.

3.3 Nigerian Foreign Policy before May 1999

The Nigerian foreign policy will be reviewed under the theoretical frame work of classical
realism and neo liberalism, but in order to effectively analyse the foreign policy of Nigeria during the
Obasanjo regime of 1999 – 2007, it has become pertinent to understand the kind of environment he
met on ground, the state of affairs in the country and the perception of the international community of
Nigeria.
Before May 1999, dictatorial stance and “Area Boy” diplomacy was what characterized the
Abacha’s era which made Nigeria become a pariah state with which none except compliant African
countries talked to (Ebenezer Okpokpo).
The violation of several human rights ranging from the hanging of the “Ogoni Nine”
including Ken Saro wiwa, unjust imprisonment of civilians including ex-president Olusegun
Obasanjo to the misuse of power was the order of the day. During this period witnessed the
international press negative campaign against the country, many ambassadorial positions remained
vacant and no diplomats were posted out helping to further tarnish the country’s Image. According
to records, Nigeria was like a country without a foreign minister and a foreign policy.
Though Gen. Abubakar’s transition tenure after the untimely death of General Sani Abacha
recorded some success in bringing Nigeria out of her pariah status, his stay was too brief to really
create any significant impact.

3.4 May 1999 – April 2007

We are going to discuss this Era from 5 stand points;

3.4.1 Search and appeal for Foreign Investment:

Following the international isolation of the Abacha regime, President Obasanjo right from his
Inauguration as Nigeria’s executive president on May 29, 1999, has shown an incurable optimism
that the earliest and best way of developing the Nigerian economy is through attracting foreign
investment into the country after a number of foreign countries shielded away from Nigeria. At this
time, Nigeria was rated the 26th poorest country in the world. (UN Journal 2007).
President Olusegun Obasanjo believed that the best way to attract investors into the country
was going to their various countries to appeal to them to come and invest in Nigeria. According to
official sources, the Presidential as at mid August 2002, travelled out of the country for a hundred and
thirteen times since he took over the leadership of the country at the end of May in 1999, and as June
2002 he had been out of the country for a period of 340 days (Akindele 2005). The implication of
this is that, in a period of three years, the president has been out of the country for a combined period
of a year less two weeks. This was termed “Ajala Diplomacy” by Akindele.
External affairs ministers at this time were nothing more than the presidents’ companions on
foreign trips.
Despite Criticism, President Obasanjo believes that his approach is still in order. Thus he
argues that “I have devoted much time and energy journeying virtually all corners of the globe in my
personal effort to positively reintegrate our country into the international community and attract
investment. We are happy to report that the results from these trips have been encouraging enough to
5|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

confirm my personal belief and the advice of marketing experts, namely that personal contact is the
best way to way to market your product, and my product is Nigeria (Obasanjo 2002).

3.4.2 Economic devaluation and privatisation:

Obasanjo’s administration completely embraced the policies of economic deregulation and
privatisation as ushered by the IMF through a programme called the “Washington Consensus”. This
phrase is a term in development policy proposed in 1990 by the Washington – based financial
institution of the World Bank, the IMF and their subsidiary agencies. It signifies neo-liberal, neo –
colonial, market economic policies which are not meant to provide an effective frame work for
combating poverty nor for generating rapid economic growth. Rather, it is designed to tie
perpetually the economies of client economies to the apron string of the metropolitan Western
economies”. In its broad terms, the principles enunciated in the ‘Consensus’ were meant to continue
to control and direct the economic policies of countries that have no independent economic policies
of their own and was designed principally for the Latin American countries and not for African
Countries, especially Nigeria. (Sam Aluko 2007).
The original proponents of this consensus have however now admitted that the imposition of
the propositions is harmful to developing economies, particularly currency devaluation, privatisation,
trade liberalization, deregulation, market determined economic policies and dependence on the free
flow of direct foreign investment(all of which characterized the Obasanjo’s regime).
Privatisation in Nigeria was handled by the Bureau of Public enterprises (BPE) aimed at
privatising publicly owned enterprises and reduction of governmental inference and control in the
economy, thus, leaving it to the prevailing market forces. It was inclined towards trade liberalization
and free open markets with minimal governmental control. The BPE itself confessed it continued to
enjoy the best support from World bank and its affiliates as partners in progress and that an arm of the
World bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), has been serving as the sole adviser of the
Federal Government with respect to the effective implementation of its privatisation programme since
its inception in 1999, inspite the fact that such privatisation orgy has not succeeded in any part of the
developing world.
The major scandals during this period were the privatisation of NITEL, Nicon Noga Hilton Hotel and
Presidential library.

3.4.3 Debt Relief for Nigeria:

Apart from the search for foreign investment, the other key issue which the Obasanjo
administration sees as key instrument towards Nigeria’s economic revival is debt relief. As at when
Obasanjo took over power, Nigeria owed N537.5 billion domestic debt and N633. 1 billion external
public debts (Aluko 2007).
The Paris club had a meeting on the 29 th June 2005 where the issue of Nigeria’s debt was
discussed. Nigeria owed the club $31 billion. According to the deal, Nigeria will make an upfront
payment of $6 million of existing arrears to the club thereby reducing the debt to $25 billion. Out of
this, the club will write off 67% amounting to between $ 17-18 billion. This leaves a balance of $9
billion which the Nigerian authorities hope to buy back at a market related discount of $ 6 million.
As expected, the debt relief attracted a lot of interest and analysis by Nigerians. Initially, the
majority believed it was really a good bargain. However, as the euphoria of the celebration reduced,
the implications of the Paris club terms started sinking in and those who from the onset were
uncomfortable with the deal won more converts.

6|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

Firstly, the announcement by the Paris club was not a debt cancellation; but a statement of
intent which they hope to fulfil if Nigeria met certain conditions, which means Nigeria would first of
all negotiate with the IMF and conclude a Policy Support Instrument (PSI).
Secondly and more importantly, the debt relief terms simply implies that Nigeria will be
making a down payment of $12 billion to be eligible for the cancellation. This was simply suicidal
for a poor country like Nigeria.
The Irony of the Paris clubs demand becomes clear where one understands how the club rope
nations into the debt trap. According to Dr. Abraham Nwankwo, the Director portfolio management
in Nigeria’s Debt Management Office (DMO) Nigeria had in the past 38 years paid about $42 billion
to the Paris club as interest and penalties on $ 15.5 billion loans to Nigeria. Despite this outrageous
amount the country still owes the club $ 31 billion which is due mainly to accrued Interest. According
to him the Paris club had become debt enhancing rather than debt reduction association (obi 205).

3.3.4 Relationship with the super Powers:

Nigeria’s relationship with great powers since May 1999 has been exceedingly warm;
President Obasanjo has tried all in his powers to make sure that Nigeria’s remains in the good books
of these countries.
The reason for this is not farfetched. First, as pointed out above, Nigeria is indebted to them
so it simply makes sense to maintain a very cordial relationship with them so as to be able to get a
listening ear and consequently sympathy for the Nigeria case. Secondly, as the African Union (AU)
chairman the onus lies on him to try and maintain a good relationship with the western nations from
whom Africa is demanding a lot of concession trade debt relief and many more from.
However, in maintaining such relation, there should be an objective analysis and balancing of
the costs and benefits. In the case of Nigeria Akindele (2008) has asserted that it is arguable that
Nigeria under President Obasanjo had no realistic alternatives to strengthening Nigeria’s trade
relations with the U.S. which is the largest single buyer of Nigeria most important Commodity, oil,
with Britain, a historically important trading partner and Nigeria’s largest creditor State and with
European Unions, Germany and France which are also Nigeria’s major creditors and trading partners.
Because of President Obasanjo’s stance regarding Robert Mugabe’s human right abuses in
Zimbabwe, Britain and U.S were glad to have an African ally when many other African nations
(including South African) were taking a softer stance. This further enhanced Nigeria’s relationship
with the big powers as they did not want to risk the nascent democracy in Nigeria and being among
the world’s 10 biggest oil export as well as fears that as the continent’s most populous nation,
Nigerian Internal divisions risked negatively affected the entire continent.
A further sign of the friendly relations between Nigeria and the U.S. is the military
cooperation agreement signed by both countries in the year 2000.
The scheme is known as the military professional Recourses initiative (M.P.R.I). Under this
scheme the U.S. undertook to send military institutions and help Nigeria to procure military and also
assist Nigeria in retraining and re-equipping Nigerian soldiers to enable them perform their peace
keeping roles in sierra Leone more efficiently and effectively and effectively (Asobie 2005).
Asobie (2005) went further to assert that two considerations informed the U.S. Policy in this
regard. The first the resorting that regional military actors could be more effective than traditional
united nations peace keepers for complex domestic wars such as the ones in Sierra Leone. The
second was the conviction that Obasanjo’s Civilian regime needed to be secured and strengthened
since Nigeria under a liberal democratic regime is the only country except South Africa that could be
7|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

aided to some as a major force for stability in Africa.

3.4.4 Response/participation in the Developmental initiative of the Global System

If there is an area where president Obasanjo has really made a mark in his foreign policy
pursuit, it is on the response to developments in the world. These developments are globalization,
proliferation of intra-state conflicts in Africa and lastly response to international court of justice.
Globalization has been defined as the process of increasing interdependency and global
enmeshment which occurs as money, people, images, values and Ideas flow ever more swiftly and
smoothly across national boundaries (Hurrel and Woods 1995). Obasanjo’s administrative response
to globalization was to deepen it’s commitment of continental and regional economic cooperation
and integration in Africa and to make it a top ranking item in its foreign economic policy agenda in
Africa and West Africa in particular.
On the continental scale, Nigeria has shown a strong determination toward the success of the
New Partnership for African Development (N.E.P.A.D.). As the chairman of NEPAD implementation
committee of head of state, President Obasanjo has been constantly in touch with the new partners of
Africa toward the successful implementation of the scheme.
Because of the nascent nature of Nigeria’s Democracy at this time and president Obasanjo’s
quest to pleasing the international community and attracting foreign investors to the country, the
ceding of the battled Bakassi to Cameroun did not come as a surprise as President Obasanjo being the
AU chairman had to lead by example by showing that he had respect for the International Court of
Justice (ICJ).

4.0 Third Term Agenda

After Presidents Obasanjo first two terms, he was embroiled in a controversy regarding his
“third term Agenda” a plan to modify the constitution so he could serve a third, four – year term as
president. The bill was ratified by the National Assembly. Consequently, President Obasanjo
stepped down after the April 2007 general elections. The third term Agenda not only succeeded in
dividing the nation into anti and ‘pro’ third term but also succeeded in planting a seed of doubt in the
minds of the International community as to the future of Nigeria.

5.1 Criticism of President Obasanjo’s Regime

a. The administration was criticized for spending billions of tax payers money touring
the global when all he had to do was to fix the economy of the country first then investors would
come willingly. Foreign investors are core capitalist who have a sharp eye for profit and will only go
to places where they are sure of their investment and their personal security and the risk of doing
business in Nigeria in Nigeria was too high.
b. Presidential Obasanjo was criticized for refusing to pay domestic debt by paying
pensions, gratuities and other domestic creditors in order to enhance a more rapid growth of the
economy, he rather embarked upon the repayment of external debt. According to Sam Aluko (2007)
“while some of the other debtors in Africa, Asia and Latin America, 42 of them, are obtaining
complete debt write off, Nigeria paid such a huge ransom, because the Nigerian Government has
more money than sense”.
c. Although Obasanjo made fighting corruption the stated aim of his first term and
managed to pass some anti – corruption laws, critics both at home and abroad accused him of
selectively targeting this drive against political opponents and ethnic militants, ignoring growing
concerns about wide-scale corruption within his own inner political circle.
8|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

d. He was criticized by Conformation (2007) for Auctioning of choice companies,

properties and businesses at ridiculously low prices to family members, friends and cronies of the
presidency in a bid to implementing the privatization policy.
e. At home, the regime was marked by widespread criticism over the Nigerian
government response to violent crises in the North – Kaduna and Kano as well as in the central
eastern state of Benue and the Southern oil – rich Niger Delta.
f. The administration was also criticised by economists for the gross devaluation of the
country’s currency from N68 to $1 when it assumed power to N130 when it handed over in 2007.
This was due to the slavish adoption of the “Washington consensus”.

Conclusion and Future challenges:

There is no doubt that president Obasanjo has really succeeded in re-lunching Nigeria into the
orbit of international politics, from her pariah status of the Abacha years. Probably his personal clout,
contact and commitment helped a lot in this regard. However, it must be pointed out that the
introduction of democratic rule in Nigeria was a critical success factor, which made the world very
eager to welcome the country back into fold, in order to perform her natural role as a leader in the
West African sub-region and indeed Africa. Though one may argue that much of the economic
problems of Nigeria could be ameliorated through diplomacy by attracting foreign investment, aid,
regional economic integration, debt relief and concessional trade terms but the truth of the matter is
that with the amount of resources available to the country, especially since the Obasanjo regime, she
should not be going cap in hand all over the globe a begging for sorts of concessions. If the president
has devoted half the time and energy he spent on his foreign travels on fighting corruption, Nigeria
would have been better off, since most of these resources siphoned to foreign accounts by
government officials would have been used in fixing the country.
Ebenezer Okpokpo (1999) posited that “The scope of Nigeria’s foreign policy should no
longer be limited to continental affairs. It should be focused world-wide and geared toward the
promotion of our cultural heritage, and scientific, economic and technical cooperation with viable
partners. Its goal should aim at enhancing our national development, and military arrangements with
NATO countries in order to give peace a permanent character in our societal needs and our sub-
region.”
This argument is anchored on the fact that intimately what gives strength, confidence, respect
and influence to the conduct of any country’s foreign policy is the vibrant existence of a politically,
socially and economically healthy society under democratic governance. The president while paying
heed to the problems of Africa must pay greater attention to the numerous problems militating against
the Nigerian nation which he was elected to lead. Charity they say ought to and must begin at home.
After General Obasanjo handed over the reins of government to civilians in 1979 and
eventually the sixteen long years of military rule, he resumed the presidency again in May, 1999 and
remarked that Nigeria made no significant economic progress since he left office In 2007, President
Obasanjo’s regime repeated the same mistake of 1979 by preventing the best candidates in the regime
from seeking nomination for the presidency of Nigeria at the PDP convention. Instead, it hand-picked
a very good and amiable Nigerian, whose highest political ambition was to be the Governor of
Katsina State for eight years. So, if President Obasanjo lives long enough, for the next 20 years, and
we pray for his long life, the same period between 1979 and 1999, he may again in 2027 moan that
Nigeria had moved some steps backwards from when he handed over power on May 29, 2007; he
prevented the most capable Nigerians from ruling Nigeria after him.

9|Page
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

References

Akindele, R.A (2003) Foreign Policy in Federal politics; a case study of Nigeria. World Press
Incorporated, Lagos.

Aluko, O.E (1981) Essays on Nigerian Foreign Policy, Allen and unwin, London.

Dan Azumi Kofarmata (2007) Analysis of the Obasanjo regime: 1999-2007, Kano.

Mbachu O. (2008) Foreign Policy Analysis: The Nigerian Perspective, Joyce Graphic Publishers,
Kaduna.

Morgenthau H. J, (2006) Politics among Nations: Struggle for Power and Peace.

Obi, E.A (2005) Political Economy of Nigeria. Book Point Ltd, Onitsha.

Ofoegbu, Ray. (2005) Foundation Course in International Relations for African Universities.

Ofoegbu, Ray. (1978), The Making of Nigeria Foreign Policy, The star Publishing Company Ltd,
Enugu.

Okike O.O. (1982), International Legal Implications of Nigeria Cameroun Boundary Disputes, M.Sc.
Thesis, University of Ibadan.

Okpokpo, E. (1999) The Challenges facing Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in the next millennium 3(2):4
(online) URL: http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v3/v3i3a16.htm.

Okpokpo, E. (1999) Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Ten Years Into The 21st Century.

Rosenau James N. (ed.), (2004), International Politics and Foreign Policy.

Sam A. Aluko (2007) Federal Government reform agenda and the economy: 1999-2007: A critical
assessment, Akure.

10 | P a g e
 NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY: a case study of the Obasanjo regime (1999-2007)

11 | P a g e