An Appraisal Of Nigerian Foreign Policy Under The Goodluck Jonathan Administration (2011-2015)

An Appraisal Of Nigerian Foreign Policy Under The Goodluck Jonathan Administration (2011-2015)

Abstract

This study appraises the foreign policy thrust of Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, 2011 – 2015. It queries the benefactions and failures of the administration in the profitable development of Nigeria with the instrument of foreign policy. Guided by the Systems proposition, and Pluralist interdependence model, it argues that though the administration made some achievements that it left important to be asked in the profitable development of the country as the image of the country remained battered with corruption. It recommended among other effects that corruption should be dived head- on as a way of assurance to the transnational community that Nigeria is now fit for investment, which is crucial to lesser profitable development.

Chapter One

Preface

Background Of The Study

mainlands of the world don’t live in complete insulation from each other. The nation- countries, which are the main unit of mainlands, have carried on some of their conditioning in the world surroundings. Emezi( 1998193) argued, “ nation- countries don’t only come into contact with each other on their own mainland but they also interact with nation- countries in other mainlands. ” This worldwide commerce takes place in what’s called the transnational system. For this to be realized, countries are the crucial actors in worldwide relations. Hence, no nation, no matter her size, profitable talent, population,etc. can live in insulation or be an islet, connections are bound to live. Nations seek the help of others for survival. When one nation and others relate or be in contact, it’s also regarded as foreign or external relations. Foreign relations are bound upon profitable, political and socio-artistic need. The Nigerian foreign relations with rest of world dated back to the period of colonialism.

When Nigeria as indeed other African countries surfaced onto the transnational arena, the figure of the transnational system was of a loose bipolar system the Capitalist, and Socialist blocs. The two hegemonic powers were really the United States of America( USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic( USSR). The position latterly changed with the collapse of the USSR in 1990, steering in the uniquepost-cold war period. As one would have anticipated, changes at the global position also, inescapably produced spillover goods on the African mainland in general and Nigeria in particular.

In addition, as the wind of change contended on, the Organisation of African Unity( OAU) changed into African Union( AU). These changes had tremendous counteraccusations on the foreign policy and relations. The fact still remain that external structure underpins the conduct of Nigerian foreign policy and relations, and profitable development. This though, particular vagrancies and fancies of the formerleaders of Nigeria had lesser impact. For illustration, according to Fawole( 2003232), General MuhammaduBuhari’s governance and foreign relations contributed to the falling out of the Nigerian frugality because of his particular grip on foreign policy matters; therefore, “ his border check, expatriation of illegal aliens, changes of currency, dramatic recognition of Sawahari Arab Popular Democracy, politic tit- for- tat with Britain. ”

The long military absolutism in Nigeria left a bad heritage of destroying the process of routinizing foreign policy decision- timber. According to Fawole( 2003235), the military introduced their own style of decision making whereby the want of the oppressor was law. This is unlike the mercenary period where government to some extent responsible to the people, and to the congress for their conduct. Over the times, military rule made no allowance for similar responsibility, and each oppressor ran the country as he supposed fit. A practical case was that of the late General SaniAbacha whose foreign relations and programs were obviously a disaster having been awash with series of politic dummypax.Abacha dragged Nigeria’s respect in the transnational harmony of nations to the slush and turned the country to a leper state.

These issues made it accessible the major reasons why Nigeria, over the times had passed through the problem of undequal profitable and social development, debt burden, internal political and religious heads, low product, corruption, low income per capita, instability, severance, high rate of child mortality,etc.

Given this empirical link between the personality of a leader and the health of a country’s socio- profitable and political health, this study appraises the Nigerian Foreign Policy under the Goodluck Jonathan Admiistration between 2011 – 2015, with the end of determining the achievements and failures of the administration in the pursuit of the country’s foreign policy pretensions as contained in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as Amended.

Statement Of The Problem

Chapter 2, Section 19 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria outlined the foreign policy objects of Nigeria as therefore

The foreign policy objects shall be ­

a) creation and protection of the public interest;

b) creation of African integration and support for African concinnity;

c) creation of transnational co-operation for the connection of universal peace and collective respect among all nations and elimination of demarcation in all its instantiations;

d) respect for transnational law and convention scores as well as the dogging of agreement of transnational controversies by concession, agreement, concession, arbitration and adjudication; and

e) creation of a just world profitable order.

Top on the list of the foreign policy objects is the creation and protection of the public interest which presumably include security and profitable development. Since independence, especially in the period under review, and indeed moment, Nigeria is agonized with problems of instability epitomized by Boko Haram terrorism, fortified thievery, hijacking , political and ritual killings; wide poverty, largescale severance, technological backwardness, decayed social and physical structure, ignorance, reduced life expectation, debt extremity, political insecurity,etc.