Bola A. Akinterinwa
In the event of the establishment of any French or American military base in any part of Nigeria, Nigerians must expect self-destruction which has the potential to begin with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) himself. The reasons are many and not far-fetched. First, Nigerian leaders are always toying with Nigeria’s international personality and leadership credentials rather than seeking to sustain them. There was the time Morocco sought to shift its alliance from the Maghreb Union in North Africa to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in the West African Region. Nigeria, under President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) favoured Morocco’s membership of the ECOWAS, but completely ignoring that Morocco’s membership of the ECOWAS would directly undermine Nigeria’ influence in the ECOWAS region. His Foreign Minister, Geoffrey Onyeama, ignored the fact that Morocco was also being externally sponsored so that manufactured goods from Europe which could not be exported to the ECOWAS directly would now be freely exported through Morocco.
Secondly, there was also the background story of the United States Africa Command with its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. In the early 2000s, the Africa Command (AFRICOM) was to relocate its headquarters from Germany to Africa because of some German domestic protests. Even though several countries, like The Gambia, showed keen interest in playing host to it, the Gulf of Guinea countries were preferred. The targeted country of interest was Nigeria but the Nigerian opposition to it was stiff. Consequently, the United States postponed the idea of relocation for ten years in the hope of better days to come.
Now that French and American bases in the Niger Republic have been declared unwanted, efforts are being made to relocate them to Nigeria. The Federal Government of Nigeria has openly and vehemently denied any possibility of such relocation to Nigeria, but many are the media reports still pointing to the possibility.
Nigeria’s Opposition to Foreign Military Bases
Denial is an art and part of diplomacy. It is not expected that the Government will readily accept having negotiated or accepted the idea of relocation of Franco-American military bases to Nigeria. What is well known and undeniable is the fact of negotiations with many countries, including Togo, Benin, Ghana, and Nigeria to accept the relocation of the military bases to them. It is also when known that Nigeria was the preferential target state. Nigeria has openly denied the intention to host any foreign military base in Nigeria.
In this regard, however, some very notable scholars and observers – Abubakar Siddique Mohamed of the Centre for Democratic Development, Research and Training, in Zaria; Kabiru Sulaiman Chafe Arewa Research and Development Project in Kaduna; Attahiru Muhammadu Jega of the Bayero University, in Kano; Jibrin Ibrahim of the Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja; Auwa Musa (Rafsanjani) Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre in Abuja; and Y.Z. Ya’u of the Centre for Information Technology and Development, in Kano – drew the attention of PBAT and the leadership of the National Assembly in an open letter dated 3rd May 2024 to the dangers of relocating the Franco-American military bases to Nigeria. The dangers are real and should be further explicated in light of all the other environmental conditionings. It is against this background that we observe and posit that the relocation of any foreign military base in Nigeria has the potential to engender the beginning of Nigeria’s self-destruction, in general, and PBAT’s self-destruction, in particular, as well as put an end to the quest for strategic autonomy in Nigeria which is what is currently polishing Nigeria’s international image.
The first opposition and challenge was the extent to which a policy adopted at the time of independence can be continuously sustained until today. The policy was that of non-alignment. The policy never meant that Nigeria could not align but that, in the event of the need for alignment, the decision must be consistent with Nigeria’s national interest. It was on the basis of this consideration that Nigeria would not accept to blindly follow the lead of any ideological bloc and that the Anglo-Nigerian defence pact was fought and thrown to the garbage of history in 1961 for two main reasons. The pact enabled the British Royal Airforce not only to overfly Nigeria’s territorial airspace but also to carry out its aircraft tests in Nigeria. Additionally, the pact also empowered the Royal Air Force to maintain its maintenance staff in Nigeria. These considerations were inconsistent with Nigeria’s foreign policy stand.
Without any whiff of doubt, when the Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact was negotiated and done, the belief was that it was done based on the mutuality of national interest in 1957. It was negotiated as a prerequisite for Nigeria’s scheduled independence for October 1, 1960 after Nigeria had agreed to the idea of a mutual defence pact in 1958. Unfortunately and fortunately, the elections that followed in 1959 prompted a new environmental conditioning, that of pan-Africanism and non-alignment, both of which were hostile to whatever had the potential to undermine the sovereignty and political independence of any African country.
Even though the coalition government of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) and the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) played active parts to ensure the passage of the Defence Pact in the Parliament, the opposition to the pact was too strong to the extent that the national interest that was considered, state or otherwise, was jettisoned as a tenable rationale. Nigerians were not only opposed to any form of military presence in Nigeria, the already independent African States were preaching the gospel of non-alignment. In this regard, how do we interpret non-alignment if Nigeria under PBAT is to play host to Franco-American military bases? Has the Cold War that informed the adoption of the non-alignment principle been finally thrown into the dustbin of history? True enough, the general belief is that the post-Cold War era began as from the end of 1989. But is there no fresh Cold War not in the making as of today? Are people not speculating on the making of a multipolar world?
Secondly, it was also because of the need for non-alignment that Nigeria formulated exceptions to the principle of non-intervention as provided under Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. Nigeria, through External Affairs Minister, Dr Jaja Wachukwu, made it clear that the brutal killing of President Sylvanus Olympio in 1963 could not and should not be taken as an affair falling within the domestic jurisdiction of any country. Reports had it that the foreign mercenaries that invaded Togo and killed the Togolese leader had the support of France.
It is useful to note that the bilateral ties between Nigeria and France were not good since Nigeria declared French Ambassador, Raymond Offroy, persona non grata on January 5, 1961 following disagreement over French atomic bomb tests in the Reggane area of the Sahara desert. France was not happy with this development and therefore similarly hurt Nigeria’s application to become an Associate Member State of the European Economic Community by refusing to sign the agreement that would have enabled in 1966 Nigeria’s associate membership of the EEC in Lagos.
More importantly, Nigeria also said apartheid and racial segregation could not fall under the non-intervention rule of the United Nations Charter. The global community agreed with Nigeria meaning that Nigeria at the time of independence was a leader with very clear foreign policy direction. Nigeria cared much less about the attitudinal disposition of France even during the civil war of national unity when France adopted the policy of dichotomy between political differences and economic interests. After the war, General Gowon announced the policy of ‘No Victor and No Vanquished.’ This encouraged France to propose assistance to Nigeria but Nigeria politely rejected the offer of assistance. PBAT has many lessons to learn from the foregoing cases.
Thirdly, when President Olusegun Obasanjo tried to sign a Military Cooperation Agreement between Nigeria and the United States, the senior military stakeholders were not carried along. The Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-General Victor Malu, who was appointed by General Obasanjo, in spite of the fact that Lt.-General Malu had not only convicted General Dipo Diya in a military tribunal for a phantom involvement in a coup d’état against General Sani Abacha, and had also sentenced General Obasanjo to jail, was against the military cooperation agreement. In fact, Vice Admiral Ibrahim Ogohi, the then Chief of Defence Staff, made it clear to the Americans that what Nigeria needed was logistic support and not training. Consequently, the agreement with the United States was thrown into désuétude. Lt.-General Victor Malu was eventually fired. The point remains the hostility to foreign military presence in Nigeria. It is against this background that the certainties of self-destruction should be explicated in the event PBAT accepts the relocation of Franco-American military bases to Nigeria.
Certainties of Self-Destruction
The most critical characteristic of Franco-Nigerian relations is mutual suspicion which has not been reconcilable and which arises from their policy attitudes. We have argued several times in the past that the popular saying that there are no permanent friends or enemies but permanent interests cannot be applicable to the bilateral relationship between Nigeria and France. This is because France never wanted and still does not want Nigeria to be capable enough to influence Francophone West Africa, especially Nigeria’s immediate neighbours, against French interests in Africa. This is because France has various development agreements with Francophone Africa and the agreements confer privileges, rights, immunities in different sectors of national development on France. In the same vein, Nigeria does not want France to use the same Francophone countries to the detriment of her regional integration efforts. Consequently, every politico-economic effort taken by France is always closely monitored. If it is rightly argued that only interests can be permanent and the permanent interest of both France and Nigeria is to ensure that one is not taken by surprise, it is the permanency of an interest that also defines the permanency of an enemy or a friend. In other words, there can be permanent friends and enemies. It is useful to recall that Professors Rafiu Ayo Akindele and Bola A. Akinterinwa have differentiated between Nigeria’s contiguous neighbours and France as Nigeria’s neighbour by geo-political propinquity in the sense of shared values in global politics.
In the event of relocation of the French military base in Nigeria, will there be an end to the mutual suspicion? Will the mutual suspicion be aggravated? Will the relocation be helpful to the promotion of better entente with Niger Republic? How will Nigeria be perceived by the Francophone countries which are resisting neo-colonialism? Where will the principle of non-alignment be placed in Nigeria’s foreign policy calculations? Can Nigeria afford the luxury of joining France to undermine the interests of Francophone Africa? Any attempt to accommodate any foreign military base in Nigeria cannot but amount to self-suicide.
A second pointer to self-destruction is the permanency of the geo-political location of the Francophones if not taken seriously. Nigeria cannot replace her neighbours and therefore has to relate with them as they are. Nigeria’s bilateral ties with Niger are the warmest since 1970. It is the only neighbouring country with which there are no border conflicts. In other words, the Francophone phenomenon cannot be easily done away with. How will Niger feel to learn that it is Nigeria that will be playing host to the French military base that was declared unwanted in Niger? The same community of people live on both sides of the Niger-Nigeria border. The so-called international border is at best artificial.
Additionally, for example, the Member States of the Alliance of Sahel States (Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger) are yet to withdraw from the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA). True, they have withdrawn their membership of the Francophonie Organisation and have replaced French language as their first lingua franca. The mere fact that they are still within the UEMOA means that they are still under French control. Accepting a French military base in Nigeria is not also joining the French league, but also compounding the problem, which should not be for Nigeria.
A third pointer is the double standard often displayed by the big powers and proponents of non-acceptance of unconstitutional changes of government in Africa. France, in particular, is most guilty of this. In Chad, following the death of Idris Derby at the war front, his son was installed the successor contrarily to the provisions of the Chadian constitution which required the National Assembly President to organise election within 60 days. France, and even the African Union, kept mute on the provisions of the Constitution.
The situation is not different in the Côte d’Ivoire. The Ivoirian constitution provides only for two consecutive terms but President Alassane Ouattara manipulated the Constitution to allow for an unconstitutional third presidential term. France again closed her eyes to this while still preaching the sermons of constitutionality of change of government. Currently, President Ouattara is making electoral life more difficult for his political opponents to survive. If PBAT accepts any French military base, it means that Nigeria is also hobnobbing with France to undermine herself by virtue of inconsistencies with her foreign policy.
Fourthly, it should not be quickly forgotten that Gilbert Chagoury who reportedly facilitated a relationship between PBAT and President Emmanuel Macron of France is a Lebanese businessman who served as an adviser to General Sani Abacha when he was military Head of State. Nuhu Ribadu, in his capacity as anti-corruption prosecutor, said one ‘couldn’t investigate corruption without looking at Chagouri.’ In the thinking of Nuhu Ribadu, it was Chagouri that facilitated the stealing of humongous public funds by Sani Abacha and in doing so, he also engaged in self-enrichment. Eventually, when his private jet landed in Nigeria and apparently fearing imminent arrest, he flew out immediately into thin air. He escaped out of Nigeria in fear of the Olusegun Obasanjo government. Gilbert Chagoury, even though he denied any complicity, had no tenable justification by quickly escaping. It is the same Chagouri that PBAT is trying to hobnob with in fostering closer ties with France.
Without doubt, political relationship between former President Obasanjo and PBAT cannot be said to be good enough, especially since the time Bola Ahmed Tinubu was Governor of Lagos State and President Obasanjo refused to recognise and fund his newly created Local Government Areas. Consequently, PBAT may not have any headache in forging ahead with Chagoury. However, to what extent can personal friendship and diplomacy override the national interest? PBAT will need again to make haste slowly as the relationship has the potential to seriously backfire in the long run.
A fifth pointer to self-destruction is the eventuality of an enlargement of the membership of the AES. There are speculations that, sooner or later, countries like Benin, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, and Togo may join the AES. If this happens, the ECOWAS of 16 that was reduced to 15 with the first withdrawal of Mauritania in 1999 and then to 12 with the case of the AES, will be further fragmented. This means that Nigeria’s significant investments in the making of the ECOWAS will be lost. Sustaining the aftermath of ECOMOG I and II will also be no more. There may no longer be any good future for the free-trade area established in 1990. The adoption of a common external tariff in 2015 will be meaningless. Quo vadis ECOWAS?
A sixth pointer to self-destruction is the impact of the well-publicised foreign policy stand of Nigeria on non-exploitation and use of African raw materials for the exclusive development of Europe. Even though this policy was first adopted by Dr Okoi Arikpo under General Yakubu Gowon, PBAT himself later urged the United Nations in 2023 to help put a stop to the foreign exploitation of Africa’s resources during his address to the UNGA (https://www.reuters.com). Nigeria is on record to still have oil reserves of not less than 23 billion barrels and gas reserves of 160 trillion cubic meters. This means that Nigeria is potentially but not manifestly rich. To what extent can the accommodation of foreign military bases in Nigeria be helpful to the development of these resources?
A seventh pointer to self-destruction is the non-preparedness to learn from international experiences. It has been frequently argued that foreign military bases often impact negatively on national sovereignty, engender domestic instability, as well as prompt foreign power rivalry. Foreign military bases are a manifestation of intrusion in the domestic affairs of a nation even if the military bases have been invited. They infringe on the political sovereignty and self-determination of the nation. Public institutions are not only weakened as a result, the people have the potential to be unnecessarily militarised. In Nigeria, the military officers are being civilianised while the civilians are being militarised to the extent that there is no more clear-cut civilians and military officers. And true enough, Nigeria has become a terra cognita of militicians. PBAT who is not a militician should therefore open his eyes clearly and widely and avoid being precipitated into accepting military bases that can lead to self-destruction personally and nationally.
ECOWAS under PBAT has been accused of serving neo-colonial interests. The
accusation is one of the major rationales given for the withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger from the ECOWAS and for establishing the AES. Will the acceptance of a French military base in Nigeria not justify the accusation and fears of the AES countries? Will the international image and personality of PBAT not be specially tainted? PBAT is presented by the AES as a stooge of foreign powers. Why should this perception be further justified and not jettisoned? What will happen to Nigeria’s foreign policy innermost concentric circle at the level of sub-regional security which Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari says is intertwined with that of the immediate neighbours? What about the foreign policy consultation doctrine propounded by Professor Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi. And perhaps most interestingly, foreign policy under PBAT appears to be one major area of achievement with the diplomacy of 4-Ds as an instrument of attaining strategic autonomy, as well as evolving a foreign policy grand strategy. Will there not be an end to this foreign policy strategy? Any foreign policy agenda that undermines the quest for strategic autonomy is self-destruction. Military bases in Nigeria should never be contemplated. Government should make a public statement on its stand to prevent unnecessary speculations.
One attachment
Founded on January 22, 1995, THISDAY is published by THISDAY NEWSPAPERS LTD., 35 Creek Road Apapa, Lagos, Nigeria with offices in 36 states of Nigeria , the Federal Capital Territory and around the world. It is Nigeria’s most authoritative news media available on all platforms for the political, business, professional and diplomatic elite and broader middle classes while serving as the meeting point of new ideas, culture and technology for the aspirationals and millennials. The newspaper is a public trust dedicated to the pursuit of truth and reason covering a range of issues from breaking news to politics, business, the markets, the arts, sports and community to the crossroads of people and society.
You can email us at: hello@thisdaylive.com or visit our contact us page.
