The economy and international politics are principally the cardinal policy agenda for good governance. They are meant to be sensitively identified as the critical factors that determine successful administration, if they are effectively prosecuted otherwise, a contrary score sheet manifests for such stewardship. If a country performs poorly in managing the supply of money along with activities of production and consumption of goods and services, there will not be growth in the economy. On the other hand, a nation that does not relate well (diplomatically) with other nations of the world, shall definitely suffer failure in most aspects of her human relations and in several aspects of social engagements among comity of nations. The reason is that no nation can survive by operating in isolation. There must be some level of interactive relationships among sovereign states, otherwise economic redundancy will eventually rear its ugly head, characteristically as the yardstick or a key performance index (KPI) applied for measuring and assessing the administrative performance of such a nation. A government that administratively runs on faulty policy agenda in her external relations could consequentially attract a damaging economic impact in her global trade relationship. Such a situation is obviously rooted in antisocial stance, as is being observed by other neighbouring nations. And the economy can never advance or grow because no country can survive by operating in isolation.
The consequential trade outcomes that might not augur well for the expectations in an already drawn plan of an economy in the near future is, therefore, directly anchored on poor diplomatic relations (which no nation prays to experience in her diplomatic efforts and engagements). Sustainable diplomatic relations among nations therefore demands well articulated structural operations in the country with specific regards to healthy and mutually beneficial diplomatic interactions among nations; even at moments of political tensions that could occasionally arise due to divergent political ideologies, which could be diplomatically addressed. One strategy that is attractively applied as global best practices, to retain continuous trade and diplomatic relations, is the principle of conserving a permanent interest and not creating permanent enmity.
Over the years in most African nations, Nigeria has always played the “big brother’s role”, and has remained in the forefront of “peace keeping” missions and operations with provision of military forces and hard wares in so many countries within the African continent. That has always been the popular antecedents of the country’s external posture in her foreign policy within Africa. This diplomatic posture on foreign policy in African affairs is commendable although, its dynamics (financially and human input militarily) has always been a highly expensive sacrificial project. The latest loading military encounter is the recent ECOWAS position, to apply military force against the military coup in Niger that toppled Mohamed Basoum’s democratically elected administration.
The West African regional bloc heads of state have been meeting, and are bent on dismantling the military rule of the junta, by military force. The resolution of these African heads of state, with regards to their insistence of zero tolerance on democratic disruptions within the regional bloc is logically germane but, the big question we all need to sincerely ask ourselves is, “are these military interferences exposing and condemning corrupt practices of the democratically elected national leaders within the sub-region?” Especially if the military action taken by dislodging the corrupt leaders is genuinely executed (in the interest of the generality of her citizens that might be suffering misrule); and every allegation levelled against the corrupt leaders are found to be true. Another question that follows would be, what position would be the best strategic approach to be taken in actualizing the zero tolerance stance against democratic distortions by military juntas (who obviously stepped on toes in their own decision to righting the wrongs of their internal politics)? Although no one should in the wildest estimation think or support mutiny in a democratically established government, diplomacy, of course, in a situation like this should be the most feasible option to be applied by Nigeria. Moral suasion and justification demand that a strong diplomatic delegation be deployed for persuasion rather than attacking the military junta that has purportedly and genuinely sanitised the polity (by their own advised action, and judged from their perspective, according to their internal political issues and challenges, for the overwhelming public interest).
Nigeria as a sovereign state should be advised, not to unnecessarily waste human beings, money, time and energy to go to war, if any dethroned leader was eventually confirmed to have been deep in corrupt malpractices (although military coups are outrightly condemned going against democratically elected administrations across the land, as has repeatedly been emphasised). What Nigeria needs to do at this critical moment, is to focus more on her economic engagements and business exploits, rather than exerting much energy on the issues of war in a foreign land, while our internal economic situation is presently in a complete mess (by known economic and financial indicators). A strategic approach on how to achieve democratic success within the regional bloc that can dislodge the military rule diplomatically should be vigorously pursued. The approach will aid Nigeria to succeed in her plans, to actualize the long term planned gas exports to Europe through access and utilisation of the gas pipelines that traverse Niger and Algeria.
