AN APPRAISAL OF THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF PRESIDENT YAR’ADUA AND PRESIDENT JONATHAN’S 2007-2015
Abstract
The study is an assessment of Nigeria’s foreign policy under the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan in relation with ECOWAS. This work is necessitated on the premise that no state in the modern times can avoid involvement in international affairs, and this involvement must be systematic and based on certain principles. The objective of this work was to determine if Nigeria’s policy under the period in view had significant impact on Nigerian global image. Data for this study was obtained from secondary sources; the expose facto research design was adoptedwhile the qualitative descriptive method was adopted to analyze data. The concentric circles theory formed a framework of analysis. The research unfolded findings that Nigerian foreign policy under Jonathan’s administration had less positive impact on Nigeria’s global image; internal challenges were responsible for poor implementation of policies. The study recommended the re-implementation of Nigeria’s vital interest, which involves the security of lives and properties, protection of her society and defense of independence. Nigerians in Diaspora must be recognized and encouraged because they play a permanent role in advancing the foreign policies of the country.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
All states have some kind of relations with one another. No state in the modern times can avoid the involvement in the international affairs, and this involvement must be systematic and based on certain principles. In other words, states have to behave with one another in a particular manner. The framing of the foreign policy is, therefore, an essential activity of a modern state, for a state without foreign policy is like a ship without rider which may drift aimlessly and may be swept away by a storm of current events. What a state intends to do is defined by its interests; what is actually able to achieve is a function of its military and economic capability as well as the quality of its diplomacy. The history of Nigerian foreign policy since 1960 has constantly been changing, though the principles guiding her foreign relations remain the same (Gambari, 1989). Nigerian leaders are largely responsible for these unstable external relations. Apparantly, Nigeria’s foreign policy is deeply rooted in Africa with strategic emphasis on political and economic cooperation, peaceful dispute resolution, and global nonalignment (Gambari, 1989). Nigerian leaders also have their attention fixed on the successful implementation of these principles. However, the influence of individual personality on Nigeria’s relations with other countries cannot be totally ignored as different leaders adopt different styles in conducting external relations.
Examining the personality of the leader both at the theoretical and practical levels is therefore important to the understanding of Nigeria’s foreign policy. This is largely due to the fact that critical historical analysis revealed that the country’s foreign policy is synonymous to personality of the leader on board at any given time. However, it is important to accentuate that Nigeria’s foreign policy started at moderate level since independence in 1960. This may be largely due to smooth power relinquishing that occurred between Nigeria and the then colonial master (Britain). The crux of the matter remains that, there was nothing in the pattern and traditions of Nigerian foreign policy from independence to the emergence of Sani Abacha as Head of state to suggest that the country would become a pariah state in the international system. Even the speech of the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa on Independence Day October 1, 1960 seemed to indicate that Nigeria was properly focused and her mind set firmly directed at the goal of her foreign policy. He declared thus;
I have indeed very confident that, based on the happy experience of a successful partnership our future relations with the United Kingdom will be more cordial than ever, bound together as we shall be in the common wealth by a common allegiance to her majesty Queen Elizabeth whom we proudly acclaim as Queen of Nigeria (hence) we are grateful to the British Officers who we have known, first as masters and then as leaders and finally as partners but always as friends (Balewa, 1960:26).
Immediately after, on October 7, 1960, Nigeria registered herself as the 99th member of the United Nations thereby becoming a recognized member of the international community. By her resources and even size, Nigeria was at the fore-front of Africa, providing with others, the necessary leadership and to fight the clutches of colonialism, neo-colonialism, underdevelopment, poverty, famine and racial discrimination. In fairness, some leaders gave the nation its right of place.
President Olusegun Obasanjo, at inauguration in May, 1999, inherited a nation with a battered image and without credibility externally. In his determination to regain Nigeria’s lost glory and re-integrate it into the civilized world, he engaged in a deft shuttle diplomacy across the major capitals of the globe. It is in view of the above imperative that the study is set to examine the gains and challenges of Obasanjo’s administration on Nigeria foreign policy in the 21st century.
President Good luck Jonathan following his victory in the 2011 elections, before the anxious 100 days in office, directed presidential advisory council on international relations (PACIR) to coordinate the reforming of Nigeria’s foreign policy to be investment oriented. Coupled with his interactive forum with Nigerians abroad during his foreign visits, the president asked the nation’s foreign policy experts, seasoned diplomats, professionals and intelligentsia to chart a new way for the future without discarding the past.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Relations between Nigeria and other state and non–state actors in international politics from 1999 onward were based on democratic principles. The tit-for-tat diplomacy of late Gen. Sani Abacha, de facto President of Nigeria from 1993 to 1998 had greatly damaged the image of Nigeria. The government was accused of human rights abuses and was repeatedly condemned by the U.S. State Department. There were break in relationship with many countries with threats of economic sanctions from others. Apart from this, the government was characterized by an inconsistent foreign policy which made Nigeria a scorn in the comity of nations.
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 or domestic interest. This invariably means that foreign policy is important in formulating, maintaining and sustaining a nation’s good image. The Jonathan administration, like many other administrations in Nigeria has 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 [Nwankwo O (2013)].
In response to this, the research work therefore aims at assessing Nigerian foreign policy under President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration from 2011-2015. The research will also find out the extent of implementation of the foreign policy issues that President Jonathan focused on to implement.
1.3 Research questions
1. Did Nigeria’s Foreign Policy under Goodluck Jonathan regime have any positive impact on Nigerian’s image globally?
2. How has ECOWAS enhanced Nigerian’s economic development?
3. What were the challenges of implementation of Nigeria’s foreign policy Under Goodluck Jonathan’s administration?
1.4 Objectives of the study
This study has both broad and specific objectives. The broad objective of this study is to evaluate Nigeria’s foreign policy under theadministration of President Goodluck Jonathan 2011 to 2015, in relation with Ecowas. However, the specific objectives are as follows:
1. To determine if Nigeria’s Foreign Policy under President Goodluck Jonathan regime had any implication on Nigeria’s global image.
2. To examine how ECOWAS enhanced Nigerian’s economic development.
3. To ascertain the challenges of implementation of Nigeria’s foreign policy Under Goodluck Jonathan’s administration
1.5 Scope of the Study
This study focuses on Nigeria’s foreign policy under the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan 2011 to 2015, in relation with its achievements with the regional body of Ecowas. It looks at the influence of personality on the conduct of foreign policy. Other areas which this study covers include the domestic factors that influenced the foreign policy of Goodluck Jonathan. Moreover, the key achievements of Goodluck Jonathan foreign policy as regards domestic economic growth, political stability, regional security, and international participation are covered in this research. However, the research will be limited to the foreign policy implementations of President Goodluck Jonathan and does not intend to provide a biography of the man nor do a comprehensive study of all his political activities in Nigeria.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
In producing a work like this, the problem that confronted the researcher was not the scarcity of materials, but its availability. More so, this research work is contemporary and politically sensitive. The researcher therefore was confronted with the problem of interpretation of the actions of President Goodluck Jonathan as some of the policies initiated are still an on-ongoing process. Time and funds served as serious impediments to this research.
1.7 Significance of the Study
This study has theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, it will add to already existing knowledge in the field of foreign relations and related fields. Practically;
1. It will be useful to scholars’ especially diplomatic historians, political scientists, economists and international relations experts in their research. Diplomats like ambassadors, high commissioners and staffers of foreign ministries will benefit from the work
2. The study will be of paramount importance to decision makers and the would-be diplomats for it traces the historical development of Nigeria foreign policy since 1960.
3. It will help to re-affirm the bold attempt made by the democratic governments under various administrations, especially that of Goodluck Jonathan.
4. This research work will help in providing information on the domestic factors that influenced Nigeria’s foreign policy under President Goodluck Jonathan from 2011 to 2015.
5. The political and military class will learn, through this study, the need for them to be patriotic.
1.8 Hypotheses
Based on the research questions and objectives of the study, the following hypotheses were formed.
1. Nigeria’s Foreign Policy under Goodluck Jonathan’s regime impacted positively on Nigerian’s global image.
2. Ecowas has positively enhanced Nigerians economic development.
3. Nigeria’s foreign policy Under Goodluck Jonathan’s administration suffered poor implementation.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This section is an examination of past works of other authors, analysts expressed in past projects and textbooks. The examination will be done under the following headings and sub-headings.
1. Conceptual Clarification
Foreign Policy
National Interest
National Development
2. Historical Review of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy
First Republic
Second Republic
Military Rule
Fourth Republic (Olusegun Obasanjo)
Yar’Adua/Jonathan Administration (2007-2014)
Domestic Factors Influencing Nigeria’s Foreign Policy
Nexus between Foreign Policy, International ImageandNationalTransformation
Gap in Literature
Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is defined by Goldstein and Pevehouse (2011:103) as the “strategies that government use to guide their actions in the international arena…they spell out the objectives which state leaders have decided to pursue in a given relationship or situation”.
Carlsnaes (2008:335) approached the definition of foreign policy in a more detailed form. He argued that it:
…consists of those actions which, expressed in the form of explicitly stated goals, commitments and/or directives, and pursued by governmental representatives acting on behalf of their sovereign communities, are directed toward objectives, conditions and actors – both governmental and non-governmental – which they want to affect and which lie beyond their territorial legitimacy.
This implies that, for countries to relate effectively with one another, foreign policy must be well defined, well thought out, and must possess direction. Hence, Adeniran (1982:185) infers that foreign policy can best be understood through an explanation of what it actually is. Foreign policy, according to him consists of three elements. One is the „overall orientation and policy intentions‟of a particular country toward another. The second element is the „objective‟ that a country seeks to achieve in her relations or dealings with other countries. The third element of foreign policy is the „means‟ for achieving that particular goal or objectives.
According toLegg and Morrison (1971) “foreign policy is a set of explicit objectives with regard to the world beyond the borders of a given social unit and a set of strategies and tactics designed to achieve those objectives”. This understanding subscribes to the designation of plans and clear cut strategies for actualization of those plans. It is idealist because it fails to take cognizance of the contingencies in the international system in terms of the unpredictability of behaviors of international actors.
Another conceptualization of foreign policy emerged from the obvious shortcoming of the above view. This view was well articulated by Vital (1968). To him, “foreign policy implies rather a field of related but distinct actions and issues in which there neither is nor can be foreign policy”. According to his thesis, the realities of states‟ behavior entail decisions and policies being formulated in a disjointed fashion, largely in response to immediate pressures and events, in a number of separate structures and issue areas. Thus, Frankel’s (1964 and 1975) conception of foreign policy “as a dynamic process of interaction between the changing domestic demands and the changing external circumstances” is apt in the light of occurrences in contemporary global political order.
Ade-Ibijola (2013:565) simply defined Nigerian foreign policy as the driving factor behind Nigeria’sinteraction with other nations of the world. He further summed it as the declared intentions of a state. This conception of foreign policy can simply be reconstructed to read as the declared intentions of a state in relation to other states.
National Interest
Ajayi (2004) observed that national interest is characterized with inconsistency. People do hide under the cover of national interest to project and protect their own individual or group interest. In a situation such as this, national interest does have a negative contribution to national development. But, where the interest of the people is generally projected and protected national interest can then contribute meaningfully and positively to national development.
National Development
The term national development is used to refer to a state of maturity which characterizes a nation-state. This maturity results from the interplay of modern political, economic and social forces and processes which transform diverse people, shaping a common geographical area, from acceptance and allegiance to and participation in a transitional policy to the acceptance and creations of and participation in a modern nation-state (Amadu, 2015).
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF NIGERIA’S FOREIGN POLICY
Nigeria’s image crisis has historical foundation and dynamics (Ajayi, 2005:50). This section becomes relevant as it explores Nigeria’simage since 1960 in order to identify the highlights and turning points in Nigeria’simage and foreign policy.
First Republic
Tafawa Balewa, through his pioneering foreign policy anchored on Afrocentricism, was able to lay the foundation for Nigeria’sroles and influences in international politics which; ultimately helped to give a credible image for the country in the comity of nations (Ajayi, 2005). The expulsion of apartheid South Africa, breaking of ties with France and participation in the Non-aligned movement rang positive bells towards Nigeria’simage abroad (Folarin, 2013:21). Second Republic
The expelling of illegal aliens from Nigeria, in the guise of national interest, was an action that was indeed inimical to the country’s development. Over two to three million illegal immigrants were given fourteen days to leave the country. This action alone created a bad image for Nigeria abroad (Lukpata, 2013:65). Thus, Shagari’s administration was described as inhumane, callous and irresponsible. It did incalculable damage to Nigeria’sreputation and standing among the Great Powers and the developing world.
This action was so disappointing that even the opposition parties and senior officials in the Ministry of External Affairs were frustrated because most of their efforts in building a positive image for Nigeria had gone down the drain as a result (Abegunrin, 2003:107). Nigeria also lost her reputation in this period as a frontline state fighting against the apartheid in South Africa because the administration was not as active and concerned as the previous administrations (Folarin, 2013:22).
The manner in which the management of Nigeria’s presence in international organizations was organized, appeared very appalling and had made null the efforts that previous administrations had exerted to making the Nigerian image a good one on a regional and sub-regional scale (Garuba, 2008:8).
Military Rule
The civil war of 1967-1970, and the discovery of oil conditioned the Gowon era to a large extent. However, Nigeria was still active in the international system as evident in the recognition of China, the formation of ECOWAS, Niger Basin Commission and the Chad Basin Commission (Folarin, 2013:22). Nigeria’sefforts under Gowon against apartheid, crimes against humanity, anti-colonial and anti-racial policies were indeed commendable (Ajayi, 2005:52). The Murtala/Obasanjo regime was radical against colonialism and racism. Nigeria, under their administrations engaged in a large number of peace keeping missions and was more alert to issues of injustice mostly in Africa by promoting the causes of freedom fighters and Pan Africanism (Ajayi, 2005:52; Garuba, 2008:6). Generally, under their administrations, the country’s image can be said to have been very favorable.
The Buhari-Idiagbon regime made efforts at restoring the battered image of Nigeria after Shagari’s tenure by ushering in an anti-drug and anti-corruption policy to brighten the country’s image (Folarin, 2013:22). This regime was able to gain direction in tackling the country’s economic problems and debt incurred by Shagari’s administration. The regime was credited in 1984 for having paid promptly for all imports with foreign exchange earned by the nation and did not borrow from any international financial institution. This factor was able to re-establish Nigeria’simage in the foreign market (Ali, 2013:3).
Babangida’s regime started by claiming that, it was an offshoot of the Murtala social revolution that was later intensified by Buhari, but it instead rubbished their efforts by reinstating dismissed officials and returning all that were confiscated, deported Keeling from Nigeria, a Financial Times journalist for investigating and reporting on the Gulf War oil windfall corruption (Ojukwu and Shopeju, 2010:19). Emordi (2008:6 in Ali, 2013:5) stated that “Babangida‟sadministration institutionalized corruption as if it was a cardinal state policy”. This compounded the moral image of the country as a very corrupt country. Prospective investors found it hard to do business in the country, because of the bribes and kickbacks to the bureaucrats. The lack of credibility in the transition programme and the eventual annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections increased the downward plunge of the country’s credibility owing to the fact that international observers deemed the elections to be the most peaceful and fairest elections ever conducted in Nigeria. The regime was also acclaimed to have had disregard for human rights and was autocratic in his approach (Ajayi, 2005:52).
The height of the decline in Nigeria’s international image occurred during the late General Abacha regime. He disbanded all democratic institutions, assassinated a number of pro-democracy activists, and killed opponents and protesters. He had complete disregard for human rights and the opinion of the international community (Folarin, 2013:22). Things got worse with the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight Ogoni kinsmen in November 1995, which put his regime at odds with the world, particularly the United Nations, the European Union and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth in particular, outrightly suspended Nigeria from its membership because it considered all of Abacha„s conduct a gross violation of its 1991 Harare Declaration of Commonwealth Principles (Josiah, 2008 in Folarin, 2013:23) The administration initiated some measures to curb corruption like the War Against Indiscipline and Corruption (WAIC), but this was an irony in itself as his government itself was characterized by general mismanagement, “corruption of monumental dimension” (Emma, 2009 in Chukwuemeka, Bartholomew and Ugwu, 2012:71). The level of corruption was so much that it led to the ostracising of Nigeria from the comity of nations, and Nigeria became a pariah state. His administration almost emptied the government‟s treasury and after his death, over $600 million and £75 million pounds were recovered from his family (Chukwuemeka, Bartholomew and Ugwu, 2012:71).
Fourth Republic (Olusegun Obasanjo)
President Olusegun Obasanjo, at inauguration in May, 1999, inherited a nation with a battered image and without credibility externally. He made efforts to build the country’s image and re-integrate Nigeria into the world while regaining her lost glory through shuttle diplomacy. Under his leadership, Nigeriaassumed leadership of several international organizations like the ECOWAS, African Union (AU) and G77. Nigeria also hosted several international summits including those of the Commonwealth Heads of State and Government and the AU in 2004, the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) in 2005, and ECOWAS since 1999. The country had also hosted the All Africa Games in 2004. Obasanjo had been the guest of honour to the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in May 2004. All these showed that the international community had begun to have confidence again in Nigeria (Ajayi, 2005).
Nigeria was able to recover most of the stolen funds in foreign banks located in Belgium, Switzerland, Britain, America and Germany. He held periodic meetings with the Nigerians in the countries that he visited from time to time in order to discuss issues of common interest and update them on government policies, as well as possible ways they can help move the country forward. He helped Nigeria regain her lost status of being the hub of air and sea transportation in Africa which was severely affected during the Abacha regime. Nigeria in this period also played a frontline role in the relations between the G8 and other developed countries. She also played a central role in the formation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). Obasanjo, through a US-contracted military outfit, restructured the Nigerian Military Professionals Resource Incorporation (MPRI) (Garuba, 2008:15-16).
Obasanjo’s tenure recorded remarkable achievements in the areas of peace and security. There were active engagements in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Darfur (Sudan), where it sent peacekeeping troops; the country has also held peace talks between the Sudanese government and the warring factions in Abuja. The government had equally demonstrated efforts on the restoration of peace in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In Liberia, it sponsored Nigeria‟s former leader General Abdulsalami Abubakar through ECOWAS to lead the peace process that got Charles Taylor to relinquish power, while it facilitated the second track of peace and reconciliation in Sierra Leone, in collaboration with ECOWAS and its member-states (Garuba, 2008:17). Obasanjo‟s government also championed projects such as Gulf of Guinea Commission, attempted to strengthen bilateral relations with Cameroun with which it settled the long dispute over Bakassi through the Nigeria-Cameroun Border Commission and the Republic of Benin with which it tried to address issues of cross-border crimes (Garuba, 2008:17-18). The country and her leadership enjoyed accommodation and tolerance by the international community but the ordinary citizens are often made to suffer personality pillage, inhumane treatments and abuse of fundamental human rights at embassies and off-shore. Nigeria‟s image crisis at the level of individual Nigerians, rather than the state, is yet to be resolved despite the president‟s shuttle diplomacy. Other issues which engender and sustain such image problem externally include internal insecurity, poor infrastructural base, perpetration of financial crimes and lack of organization and discipline. As much as these may be perceived as internal problems, stating these internal challenges is important because foreign policy is a reflection of domestic policies externally (Ajayi, 2005:57).
Yar’Adua/Jonathan Administration (2007-2014)
The election that brought President Yar‟Adua into power was reported by international observers as being flawed. The European Union specifically criticized the 2007 elections as being seriously faulty and did not meet the required international standards. This issue contributed to a decline in the country’s image. The democratic credibility of the country had become questionable as a result (Yagboyaju, 2011:99). At the time President Yar‟Adua came into office, it was worthy of note that his health had been severely threatened. While he was trying to manage his ill-health, Yar‟Adua made no provisions for the Vice President to act in his absence. Thus:
The consequence was that the ship of the Nigerian state was sailing rudderless on the international waters of foreign policy… Without functional institutions and without a leader, Nigeria’sforeign relations and indeed the State of Nigeria also went into coma when Yar‟Adua went into coma in Saudi Arabian hospital. Nigeria failed to show up at important international meetings, lost many positions in multilateral associations, forsook obligations, and foundherself in a situation where many of her allies started wondering what had gone wrong with Nigeria (Nwankwo, 2013:215).
More than external challenges, it is the internal challenges that are dampening Nigeria‟s attainment of great power status which Vision 20:2020 envisages. Key internal challenges include poor governance, insecurity of lives and property, irregular power supply, low quality public service delivery and rating of the nation‟s educational institutions; poor capacity to innovate; the unimpressive quality of its democracy and the inability to build consensus and resolve conflicts. More specifically, the insurgency in the North, the collapse of public education, growing unemployment, oil dependent economy, dilapidated economic infrastructure among others are major issues that deserve attention, if not radical government intervention (Olutokun, 2013; Okere, 2012 in Nwankwo, 2013:218).
It has become very obvious that crime and corruption are the bane of Nigeria‟s development. The current Boko Haram insurgency in the north-eastern part of the country speaks volume. These social problems, no doubt, have battered the country‟s image. Many foreign companies have had to withdraw their operations from Nigeria because of crime, corruption and insecurity. For those that managed to stay, doing business in the country has become very expensive. Therefore, there is urgent need for a holistic effort by the government, corporate bodies and individuals to stamp out the evils of insecurity, crime and corruption so that the country is relatively safe for both Nigerians and foreigners (Ajaebili, 2011:218). Internationally, the pervasive corruption in Nigeria has tarnished the image of the country and has resulted in foreign nationals exercising extreme caution in entering into business transactions with Nigerians, thereby weakening the economic sector (Chukwuemeka, Bartholomew and Ugwu, 2012:68). The Jonathan administration, like many other administrations in Nigeria has never lacked in good policies. The problem of Nigeria’s foreign policy that is affecting the country’s image is not in formulation, but in implementation (Nwankwo, 2013:220).
Regional Analysis
Asia
The search for a new role for Nigeria in world affairs involved a region by region review of its foreign policy with a view to redefining its national interests and foreign policy objectives. The main focus of this review should be on its bilateral relations with certain regional economic and military powers that have emerged in recent years. In Asia, the dominant economic and military powers are China and India. China is the second largest economy in the world after the US. It is believed it will overtake the US in the next two decades. It has the largest horde of foreign reserves in the world, and it is forging new economic relationships with Africa. It is the country of the future. Nigeria should seek to expand its existing economic ties with China.
The same situation applies to India, now the third largest economy in the world. Unlike the western powers, these two countries do not have a past colonial record in Africa. Their interest in Africa is mainly commercial, not strategic. They only seek new markets and access to Africa’s rich natural resources, particularly its oil. It is crucial for Nigeria to strengthen its economic ties with these two countries to our mutual benefit. The President should early enough embark on a trade mission to these two countries to promote direct investments by them in Nigeria.
5.2 Conclusion
This study gathered that Nigeria’s Foreign Policy under Goodluck Jonathan’s administration had no significant role in boosting the global image of Nigeria. Therefore, it was concluded that the foreign policies established by Goodluck Jonathan’s administration had a near negative impact and implication on the global image of Nigeria as clearly stated before.
5.3 Recommendations.
Based on the findings from the data collected, the following recommendations have been made:
1. A major reorganization of the Foreign Service such that positions of the Ambassadors and other key positions will no longer be politicized. Only career diplomats and practitioners who understand the nuances of international relations and global politics should be appointed into those sensitive positions and offices.
2. The present administration should holistically address the economic challenges confronting the nation because a good foreign policy initiative is needed to ensure a robust and good international image which invariably leads to national development.
3. The economy needs to be at tunes with the realities of globalizations, as such, the economic diplomacy of the present administration needs to be directed towards addressing contemporary challenges in the society.
4. The place of Nigerians in Diaspora towards nation building in the new world order should be recognized, encourages and emphasized. This is because they have a prominent role in advancing the foreign policy of the country, as such; they ought to be given adequate diplomatic attention.
5. The federal government must ensure that recruitment into the ministry of Foreign Affairs should hence forth be based on merit alone, because in other for the image of a country to be effectively boosted, public relations have a significant role to play.
6. Special trainings in international relations at the Masters level and in other related areas should be encouraged as this will further equip and arm the officers with all they need to properly discharge their duties.
7. Effective public relations practitioners should be integrated into government especially in the case of international relations in order to effectively boost the image of the country abroad.
8. There is the need for a strong strategic plan and long term projection of the nation’s foreign policy posture with a view to fashioning out a roadmap for Nigeria’s diplomacy.
9. Nigeria’s foreign policy in contemporary context must be premised solely on national interest with emphasis on national security and welfare, regional and global peace, as well as robust multilateral diplomacy that is tailored along strong strategic partnership with friendly states in the global arena.
REFERENCES
Adeniran, Tunde (2008) “Foreign Policy, External Image and International Relations” in Sam Oyovbaire (ed.) Governance and Politics in Nigeria: The IBB and OBJ Years. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
Agbu O (2009) Nigerian Foreign Policy Under President Umaru Musa Yar’adua: Challenges and prospects. The Nigerian Institute of International affairs (NIIA), Lagos.
Akinterinwa B. A (2004) Concentricism in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. Vantage Publishers Limited, Ibadan.
Chibundu V. N (2003) Foreign Policy with Particular Reference to Nigeria (1960- 2002). Spectrum books Ltd, Ibadan.
Morton A. K (2007) Theoretical Systems and Political Realities: A Review, System and Process in International Politics. University of Chicago, USA.
Morton H. Halperin (1974). Bureaucratic polities and Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Obi E (2006) Nigeria’s Foreign Policy and International Relations Theories. Vector Publishers, Onitsha.
Yaqub N (2004) The Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainability of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in the 21st century. Vintage publishers, Ibadan.
Journals
Ajaebili C (2011) The Option of Economic Diplomacy in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1: 277-280.
Chidozie F, Ibietan J, Ujara E (2014) Foreign Policy, International Image and National Transformation: A Historical Perspective. International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences and Humanities Research 2: 49-58.
Chukwuemeka E, Bartholomew U, Ugwu J (2012) Curbing Corruption in Nigeria: The imperatives of Good Leadership. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics and Management Studies 1: 61-81.
Gyong, J. E. (2012). A Social Analysis of the Transformation Agenda of President Goodluck Jonathan. European Scientific Journal, July edition vol. 8, No.16 ISSN: e – ISSN 1857- 7431, 95-113.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What We Know About Leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9 (2), 169-180.
Nwankwo O (2013) Shifting the Paradigm in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Goodluck Jonathan and Nigeria’s vision 20:2020. Social Sciences, Science Publishing Group 2: 212-221.
Oluyemi O, Fayomi F, Chidozie A, Ajayi A (2015) Nigeria’s National Image and Her Foreign Policy: An Exploratory Approach. Open Journal of Political Science 5: 180-196.
Oviasogie, F. O., & Olanrewaju, A. (2013). Personality, Foreign Policy and National Transformation: An Assessment of the Olusegun Obasanjo’s Administration (1999-2007). Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs , 1 (2), 192-212.
Wogu IAP, Sholarin MA, Chidozie FC (2013) A critical Evaluation of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy at 53. Journal of Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 5: 137-147.
To get the complete project or material
Pay #3000 (10 Dollars) for Project material
Pay #5000 (30 Dollars) for complete project.
BANK TRANSFER OR DEPOSIT
PAYMENT DETAILS:
- ACCOUNT NAME : SAMUEL CHARLES
ACCOUNT NO. : 2009884029
BANK : FIRST BANK
ACCOUNT TYPE: CURRENT ACCOUNT
(2) ACCOUNT NAME : SAMUEL CHARLES
ACCOUNT NO. : 2078806476
BANK : UBA
ACCOUNT TYPE: SAVINGS ACCOUNT
AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS AS FOLLOWS –
NAME
TOPIC
DEPARTMENT
MOBILE NUMBER
AMOUNT PAID
TO +2348077215645 , +2348176196229 AS SMS OR WHATSAPP MESSAGE OR
E-MAIL: distinctvaluedproject@gmail.com
