In this interview with WALE AKINSELURE, former Nigeria Minister of External Affairs, Prof Bolaji Akinyemi speaks on the United States invasion of Venezuela, Nigeria’s vulnerability to superpower pressure, the Country of Particular Concern designation, the limits of the United Nations, Nigeria’s decline as the “giant of Africa,” delayed ambassadorial appointments and their diplomatic consequences.
The United States Government, led by President Donald Trump, recently invaded Venezuela and captured President Nicolas Maduro and wife, Cilia Flores. There is a general perception that this invasion is an erosion of the country’s sovereignty. The likes of the United Nations and some leaders of countries have condemned the invasion. However, beyond statements of condemnation, no leader has really moved against the U.S. Why does it seem that the U.S. is unstoppable and can’t be called to order?
Yes, you’ve raised the issue of sovereignty, and it is true, but you must make a distinction between legal sovereignty and military sovereignty. This is because it’s becoming obvious that all countries have legal sovereignty, but you need military assets to protect that sovereignty. If you go and make the mistake of projecting your legal sovereignty, and you think that is sufficient to protect you, you are making a mistake. We seem to be moving into an era where there is no universal respect for sovereignty. When you have an Adolf Hitler, a Benito Mussolini, who has no respect for legal sovereignty, then you have to recalibrate international affairs. Everybody now has to back off. It’s not that they approve of what Trump is doing, but they cannot take him on because he’s the most powerful man in the world, sitting on the most powerful military asset in the world.
Can’t China, for example, checkmate the US?
Yes, China can checkmate the United States, but at what price? China knows the price it has paid for its economic development, and that economic development, it has used it to underwrite military development, and it’s not going to risk all that by taking on the U.S.
Trump is also targeting Greenland and has warned Russia and China against any intervention. Looking at the countries that the U.S. seems to be targeting, do you agree with the assertion of Pastor Tunde Bakare that Trump is actually targeting oil in a country like Nigeria, which is oil-rich?
It may be true that it is oil that is driving the Trumpian attitude. But the fact is, Trump himself has an excuse that he’s using, which allows him to cover the oil issue, which may actually be where he’s going. But in some of the places, not everywhere, where he has been involved, he has an excuse. We have ourselves in a situation in global affairs, where we know that there are excuses that are being used, but those excuses may actually not be the real thing. So, in the case of Greenland, yes, there is no doubt that China and Russia are positioned in such a way that they have excuses that they can use. But there are so many situations in the world where there are excuses that can be used. That does not mean that you then go in there with boots on the ground. And I think that Greenland is one of those areas where there is no justification at all. For example, Ukraine shares a common border with Russia; is that a justification for Russia to invade Ukraine? No. Russia has tried to use the excuse that it is persecuting Russians who live in Ukraine. And that is the kind of excuse that we should be careful not to provide an aggressor.
Has the United Nations historically been reluctant to curtail perceived excesses involving superpowers?
The UN was designed to avoid a confrontation between superpowers that could lead to a world war. And that is why the design of veto power was institutionalised. The veto power is to avoid the United Nations getting into a war with a superpower. Without the veto power, a resolution may come up that will then involve the United Nations getting into a war with Russia. And who is going to fight Russia? It will have to be the United States, in which case you have a world war on your hands. Or, America goes into Venezuela, and the UN wants to stop it. Who has the power to stop the United States? No superpower wants a world war. They don’t mind small wars, and that’s what we’ve been having since the end of the Second World War. You’ve had wars in Vietnam. In the Russia-Ukraine war, the United States has been careful about how much support it gives Ukraine. It doesn’t want to get to the point where Russia will say, “This is no longer a war between Russia and Ukraine.” This has now become a war between Russia and the United States. Remember that infamous meeting in the White House between Zelensky and Trump. And Trump said, “You are playing with World War III.” This is because there is a red line that Russia will regard as a direct war with Russia. And the United States knows it. So when people say, Why can’t the UN do this? The UN was not designed to fight a world war. The UN was not designed to fight a war against a superpower.
What practical lessons can Nigeria draw from the Venezuelan experience to prevent it from being drawn into a confrontation with a superpower?
In January last year, when Trump was warning, I was on Arise Television, and one of the programme anchors asked me this same question. He asked, “What advice would you give our own president now that we have a new president in the United States?” And I said, I’m quoting myself now, “Whatever provocation it is, don’t provoke Trump. Don’t take on Trump, because it’s unpredictable, it’s power disparity vis-a-vis the United States and Nigeria.” There’s nothing Nigeria will do if Trump decides to take on Nigeria. That’s a year ago. I wasn’t anticipating that Nigeria would now be in the crossfire of Trump. Now that it is in the crossfire of Trump, under the guise that Christians are being persecuted, and he’s told you what he was prepared to do, and he’s done it, and he’s also warned you that that is not the end of the matter. Then what you have to do is to ensure that there is no justification for Trump to take on Nigeria. Whatever it is that he says is why Nigeria is in his crossfire; you make sure that you remove it.
The Nigerian government must have taken your advice, as it has been quiet about speaking on the Venezuelan invasion. But shouldn’t we strive to be among the global powers? Is this not an instance where we should actually have a voice in a global matter?
We have a problem in our relationship with the United States. And when you have that problem, you cannot behave as if you have no problem. And our problem is – very obvious to everybody -a security one which has allowed the United States to bomb parts of our country, and for Trump to tell us that that’s not the end of the matter, more is coming. Well, if with that kind of relationship you cannot, then start shooting off your mouth. Look at a lot of European countries – Great Britain, France. They have not been as vocal as they should be. That’s because they have the Ukrainian problem on their hands, for which they need the cooperation of the United States. So we also need to, irrespective of what we may feel internally, we need to moderate our mouth, moderate our attitude on any issue involving the United States.
How do we remove the Country of Particular Concern tag that Trump has placed on Nigeria?
The man has told you that it is because of the way Christians have been treated in Nigeria that he put that tag on us. So, we now ensure that Christians are no longer killed, that they are no longer ill-treated, and that this issue of banditry is tackled. Then we could go to him and say, well, look, we’ve sorted out the problem, no more banditry, no more jihadists, we’ve driven them out of Nigeria, no more kidnapping. Then he himself can tick the boxes of all the indices that warranted the CPC tag. But as long as those things are still taking place, even if it’s sporadically, you cannot say, well, we’ve sorted out the problem. So that practically means that you (Nigeria) send enough signals to the United States that you are doing something about the problems posed by whether it is a Christian genocide, or it is a farmers/herders clash, jihadists’ problem, or all the other names used. Nigeria must show a seriousness of purpose. It must show that it’s not going to tolerate, within Nigeria, the activities of these people. It must take it seriously. Also, Nigeria must show that it is a nation of equity; that there’s not going to be any disparity in the way Nigerians feel about their presence in their own country. It must, because the Americans know us more than we know ourselves. The intelligence unit in the embassy has, at its disposal, assets that it can use to monitor what is going on in Nigeria. If people have said, there’s no discrimination in Nigeria – no religious discrimination, why do you have a Muslim-Muslim ticket? We usually don’t. It’s like having a South-South ticket. We don’t. The last person who tried it was Muhammadu Buhari-Tunde Idiagbon’s military regime, and it’s one of the reasons why they were overthrown by the Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida coup. So don’t let us pretend that it is not, because then you cannot justify it, you cannot explain it.
We had the first strike of the US in Sokoto, and there is a threat of more military strikes. Does this point to a country that is helpless in tackling this insecurity, such that it needs international help?
From the time I was Director-General, Nigeria Institute of International Affairs, I had been advocating a power structure that would enable Nigeria to protect itself, not a power capability to attack other people. I was not even the first one to think of that. Prof Ali Mazrui came to the institute and gave a series of three lectures, all based on the need for Nigeria to establish a power capability that would protect itself.
And to let you know that he was thinking of Nigeria becoming a nuclear power, one of the titles of his lecture was Niger-saki. And just to make sure that Nigerians get the message, I advocated the development of nuclear weapons in Nigeria. The press crucified me. My colleagues in the university crucified me. It was like I didn’t know what I was talking about. To some extent, there’s an element of selfishness. The same people who say we don’t have enough money to develop nuclear weapons will also be the same people who will be asking for money to develop a state, to create a state for themselves. And they are the same people who will spend money on television sets and newspapers. There was no consciousness that Nigeria does not deserve to be a weak state. And you’ve just raised it now. Does it mean Nigeria is a helpless, weak state? And the answer is yes. That’s where you drove Nigeria into, where we can be attacked by not anybody. Guinea-Bissau cannot attack us. But how do we decide the status of power capability that Nigeria needs? And I have advocated that Nigeria cannot be a world power, but Nigeria can be a medium power. And how do you define a medium power? A medium power is a regional power that, within its region, cannot be conquered.
So, is Nigeria still the giant of Africa in the real sense of it?
No, Nigeria is no longer a giant of Africa. But Nigeria can be a giant of Africa if there is the capability, if Nigeria wants to be. And if you now look at the situation, the way Nigeria is building up its naval power and its air power, it is coming to that recognition. But before, you ignored your naval power, you ignored your boots power, you ignored your air power. You were just fooling around with the power capability. After all, you’re an African country. You can see the power of Egypt. You can see the power of South Africa. You can see the power of Algeria. You can even see the power of Ethiopia. Now, if you want to compare your own power with these countries that I have mentioned, can you really prevent them if they want to attack you? Can you really prevent them? The answer is no. So if somebody now says, what is the definition, then of the medium power that Prof is talking about? I will say the definition of medium power in Africa is that you will have a power capability that does not allow any country in Africa to defeat you without paying a heavy price for it. It’s like I’m a boxer, and they say, well, how strong are you? And he says, well, you put me in the ring with Anthony Joshua, and I will survive six rounds. He will beat me, but I will survive six rounds. That shows that at least I’m not a weak boxer. And so they put you in the ring, and in the first round, the man flattens you, then you know, you’re not a boxer, you’re just playing. But so you go back and start training until AJ cannot knock you out until the sixth round. Then we know you’re a boxer. Not that you will defeat AJ. So when you say you’re a medium power, it means within your region, you will hold your own. And if you define Africa as your region, it means that if any nation that you regard as a military power in that region attacks you, you will destroy three battalions before it can defeat you. And no country wants to lose three battalions. It’s not worth it. Then you are recognised as a medium power. But if they send just 50 soldiers and they defeat you, it’s Boy Scouts you have, not an army.
From time past, the rhetoric is that Africa is the centrepiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy. But President Tinubu’s administration seems to have a special fraternity with France and China. Do you see a shift in the long-time proclamation of Africa being the centre of Nigeria’s foreign policy, under the current administration?
Is there anything that affects Africa that we have ignored?
The Sahel, for example, gained traction when President Tinubu was chairman of the ECOWAS.
Yes, but they left. We didn’t push them out. Burkina Faso and Mali had been suspended before Tinubu became chairman of ECOWAS. The only country that was suspended was Niger. And Tinubu signed on to the decision of ECOWAS to not only suspend Niger but to sanction Niger. It was stopped by the North. The North said that Niger was our brothers and our sisters, our kith and kin. And because of that, they used their voting power in the National Assembly to refuse to authorise Tinubu. Yet, when it came to the Benin Republic, the National Assembly authorised Tinubu. So, that’s a totally different issue you are raising. What we have is what I would call a sectional foreign policy, a bifocal foreign policy. We don’t have a national foreign policy – a foreign policy that is operated by national interests. It is sectional interests that drive our foreign policy. When it involves the Sahel, the North has a veto. But when it involves the South, then there’s no veto. It’s not something that I approve of, but that is the reality, that we have not national interests, but sectional interests. We should have a foreign policy driven by national interests. We cannot drive the sectional foreign policy based on kith and kin. We went to Sierra Leone. We went to Liberia. So why can’t we go to Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali? Why?
The quest for ambassadors was only just attended to by the Tinubu administration. What were the consequences of the delay in diplomatic circles? Was the US’s reading of alleged Christian genocide in Nigeria and the threat of an invasion among the consequences?
If you are not flogged at home, you will learn your lesson outside. We realized that it was a mistake not to have had those ambassadors in place who could have advanced our interests, and we are repairing it, as over 60 ambassadors have now been appointed. It’s just a question of putting them in their countries.
You once headed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Is it too much of a task for them to have effectively held the fort in diplomatic circles despite the ambassadors not being appointed from the word go?
You would forgive me if I decide not to make comments on the ministry, because as you yourself have said, I’ve headed the place before, and therefore, I should allow the people who’ve been appointed to head it now to face their problems and solve their problems.
Source: Punch