Nigeria’s Leader Role In African Union Under President Muhammadu Buhari 2015-2019
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background To The Study
Nigeria has been playing an unmatchable role in Africa since its independence in 1960 including especially its role in the eradication of colonialism in Africa and racism in the continent. Nigeria gave support to liberation movements in the continent. The measure of support it provided to freedom fighters in Africa is exemplified in the extra-ordinary role it played in bringing to an end apartheid regime in South Africa. Nigeria provided material support and finance to anti-apartheid movements throughout the struggle. Nigeria’s foreign policy revolves around Africa as the centrepiece and it has remained so from regime to regime. For this purpose Nigeria played a crucial role in the formation of the OAU.
Nigeria’s ability to mediate conflicts in the continent was instrumental to the formation of the group. From formation, Nigeria has continued to play major roles in Africa through the organization including the promotion of peace in the continent. Thus Nigeria’s peace role in Africa cannot be over emphasized because it spans even beyond its immediate sub-region including under AU and UN. Nigeria also played vital roles in the successful transformation of OAU to AU. It has also continued to play vital roles in the maintenance of the group; such important role could be seen from its contribution to the formation of both NEPAD and APRM. Nigeria has also been active in the pursuance of AU goals in Africa including the implementation of its charters. For example it has played major roles in the pursuance of democracy in the continent despite its own democracy being fragile. There is a clear disconnect between Nigeria’s role under AU and the socio-economic development of Nigeria. For example Nigeria’s political system remains fragile while its role under AU presents the state of Nigeria as one with strength and might. Lack of stability in Nigeria’s political system could be exemplified in the numerous socio-economic problems in the country; including especially the civil war from 1967-1960, religious riots, Niger-delta militant activities and the current Boko Haram insurgencies and threats in the country. Other socio-economic problems of Nigeria include poverty, corruption and lack of purposeful leadership in the country. Essentially, Nigeria has not been able to transform its role under AU to its national benefit.
Nigeria has been playing an unmatchable role in Africa since its independence in 1960 including especially its
role in the eradication of colonialism in Africa and racism in the continent. Nigeria gave support to liberation
movements in the continent. The measure of support it provided to freedom fighters in Africa is exemplified
in the extra-ordinary role it played in bringing to an end apartheid regime in South Africa. Nigeria provided
material support and finance to anti-apartheid movements throughout the struggle. Nigeria’s foreign policy
revolves around Africa as the centrepiece and it has remained so from regime to regime. For this purpose
Nigeria played a crucial role in the formation of the OAU. Nigeria’s ability to mediate conflicts in the continent
was instrumental to the formation of the group. From formation, Nigeria has continued to play major roles in
Africa through the organization including the promotion of peace in the continent. Thus Nigeria’s peace role
in Africa cannot be over emphasized because it spans even beyond its immediate sub-region including under
AU and UN. Nigeria also played vital roles in the successful transformation of OAU to AU. It has also continued
to play vital roles in the maintenance of the group; such important role could be seen from its contribution to
the formation of both NEPAD and APRM. Nigeria has also been active in the pursuance of AU goals in Africa
including the implementation of its charters. For example it has played major roles in the pursuance of
democracy in the continent despite its own democracy being fragile. There is a clear disconnect between
Nigeria’s role under AU and the socio-economic development of Nigeria. For example Nigeria’s political
system remains fragile while its role under AU presents the state of Nigeria as one with strength and might.
Lack of stability in Nigeria’s political system could be exemplified in the numerous socio-economic problems
in the country; including especially the civil war from 1967-1960, religious riots, Niger-delta militant
activities and the current Boko Haram insurgencies and threats in the country. Other socio-economic
problems of Nigeria include poverty, corruption and lack of purposeful leadership in the country. Essentially,
Nigeria has not been able to transform its role under AU to its national benefit.
As an up-grade of the defunct Organization of African Unity (OAU), the African Union (AU) is a continental
union made up of 54 independent African states. African leaders unanimously agreed to form AU in July 2001
at the Lusaka Summit but officially launched it on 8 July, 2002 in South Africa (Udombana, 2002; Onuoha,
2005; Gottschalk, 2012; Murithi, 2008). The highest decision making body of the union is the Assembly of the
African Union which is made up of all the heads of states or government of member countries of the union.
The union has several specialized institutions including especially a representative body, the Pan African
Parliament, which is made up of 265 members elected by the national legislatures of the AU member states
(see Gottschalk, 2012). However, since inception, AU has adopted some vital new documents establishing
codes of conducts and diverse regulations at continental level in order to complement the already existing
ones before the transformation of the union from defunct OAU. These include the AU Convention on
Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003); the African Charter on Democracy; Elections and Governance
(2007), and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its associated Declaration on
Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. Nigeria has been an active member of the union
since inception and as such has actively been involved in the formulation, implementation and guidance of
the union’s policies.
As an up-grade of the defunct Organization of African Unity (OAU), the African Union (AU) is a continental union made up of 54 independent African states. African leaders unanimously agreed to form AU in July 2001 at the Lusaka Summit but officially launched it on 8 July, 2002 in South Africa (Udombana, 2002; Onuoha, 2005; Gottschalk, 2012; Murithi, 2008). The highest decision making body of the union is the Assembly of the African Union which is made up of all the heads of states or government of member countries of the union. The union has several specialized institutions including especially a representative body, the Pan African Parliament, which is made up of 265 members elected by the national legislatures of the AU member states (see Gottschalk, 2012). However, since inception, AU has adopted some vital new documents establishing codes of conducts and diverse regulations at continental level in order to complement the already existing ones before the transformation of the union from defunct OAU. These include the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003); the African Charter on Democracy; Elections and Governance (2007), and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its associated Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. Nigeria has been an active member of the union since inception and as such has actively been involved in the formulation, implementation and guidance of the union’s policies.
There have been scholarly studies that address Nigeria’s diplomacy and contribution to AU albeit many authors have failed to explain how these bode with the socio-economic development of Nigeria. There have been few instances where attempts were made to explain such, yet a fully-fledged analysis lacked in their conclusions. For example, contributors such as Okereke (2012) and Gusau (2013) limited their analysis to only Nigeria and AU but failed to recognize the contradiction of Nigeria’s diplomacy and contribution with Nigeria’s socio-economic condition. There is no doubt that many more studies are required in this direction so as to beef up the scant literature that currently exists. We are therefore convinced that this paper makes a worthwhile contribution to literature on the subject. This possibility adds some value in enriching the literature on Nigeria and AU with a reflection on how Nigeria under AU platform has reflected on its socio-economic condition. The study also explores the general framework of Nigeria’s foreign policy goals and strategies in Africa and how it can serve both its national interest and the overall development goals of Africa. This paper is structured as follows: following this section is a brief description of the methodology adopted in this paper. What follows thereafter are (1) an overview of Nigeria’s foreign policy in Africa; (2) Nigeria and the Organization of African Union (OAU); (3) Nigeria’s contribution to AU formation; and (4) understanding Nigeria’s AU role and its socio-political economy since independence in 1960, and thereafter we drew conclusions. Thus, this study utilised qualitative method of research reliant on documentary analysis to re assess Nigeria’s foreign policy within the umbrella of AU and how it has fared in relation to Nigeria’s socio-economic values
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The goal of every foreign policy is to establish and maintain a cordial relationship with other nations as well as to build a good image for a nation and meet its national and domestic interests. This invariably means that a good foreign policy is important in formulating, maintaining and sustaining a nation‟s positive image. However, Nigeria‟s reputation is at a very low ebb under the Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari‟s administrations. It is alleged that violent crimes is a bane of Nigeria‟s development. The Boko Haram terrorism, the Niger Delta crises, and the IPOB agitations have earned Nigeria a place amongst the least safe countries of the world (Martin, 2016). The violent crimes perpetrated by these (and many other) groups have led to the death of over 1.3 million Nigerians and the displacement of over 20,000 people, pallid national integration, and ethnoreligious chauvinism (Duke & Agbaji, 2017). Also, bedeviled by corruption and the maddening disregard for transparency and accountability, Nigeria‟s image tarnishes while she simultaneously loses huge foreign direct investments (FDI) and herenergetic young human resourcesthat migratebecause theybelieve the country haslittle or nothing to offer them. Thus, the nation is unable to successfully combat internal insurrections and stands amongst nations with a smeared image of bad governance. This weakens the economy, increases insecurity and maladministration. In fact, according to Transparency International‟s (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of 2017, Nigeria ranked 148th out of 180 nations that were surveyed which is a slippery dash below her 136th position in TI‟s 2014, 2015 and 2016 rankings making a mockery of the Nigerian government‟s acclaimed anticorruption blitz. Added to this is the fact that the Jonathan and Buhari‟s administrations, like many other administrations in Nigeria, have never lacked good foreign policies. The problem of Nigeria‟s foreign policy that is affecting the country‟s image is not in formulation, but in implementation
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The main objective of this study is to examine Nigeria’s leader role in African union under president Muhammadu Buhari 2015-2019
SCOPE/LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study centers on terrorism and Nigerian foreign policy.
Limitations of study
Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).
Time constraint– The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for the research work.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Global security: is the efforts taken by the community of nations to protect against threats which are transnational in nature.
Security: this is an investment vehicle offered by an insurance company, that guarantees a stream of fixed payments over the life of the annuity.
Foreign policy: is the manner and objectives that are important for establishing and maintaining relationships with other countries and people of other lands.
Policy: A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters
Table of Contents