Tinubu’s Foreign Policy: A Strategic Gamble Or Calculated Move?

Introduction

The recent protests in Nigeria, marked by the display of Russian flags, have sparked debates on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s foreign policy approach, particularly within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Critics suggest Tinubu’s strategies might have fostered pro-Russian sentiments domestically. However, this claim needs a nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s historical and current diplomatic framework.

ECOWAS and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Foundations

Contrary to popular belief, Tinubu’s foreign policy is not a significant departure from Nigeria’s historical stance. Since ECOWAS was established in 1975, Nigeria’s foreign policy has emphasized African unity, anti-apartheid efforts, and the equitable use of the continent’s resources. These principles were shaped by leaders like Dr. Jaja Wachukwu and Dr. Okoi Arikpo.

Tinubu’s predecessors also positioned Nigeria as the “Giant of Africa,” enforcing justice across the continent. Tinubu’s actions align with this legacy rather than represent a unique gamble.

Tinubu’s Dual Role: President and ECOWAS Chair

Distinguishing Tinubu’s role as Nigeria’s President from his responsibilities as ECOWAS Chair adds complexity. For instance:

Niger-Nigeria Relations:
- These bilateral ties remain cordial, with minimal border disputes compared to Nigeria’s other neighbors.
- Despite ECOWAS sanctions following Niger’s May 2024 coup, military cooperation between the two countries persists due to shared ethnic ties across porous borders.
Sanctions and Ultimatums:
- Nigeria, adhering to ECOWAS directives, implemented sanctions like cutting electricity to Niger. Critics argue this decision overlooked prior bilateral agreements, raising questions about the potential for political missteps.

The Rise of Pro-Russian Sentiments in Nigeria

The emergence of pro-Russian sentiments in Nigeria is tied more to ECOWAS’ actions than directly to Tinubu’s policies. The seven-day ultimatum issued to Niger following the coup heightened tensions. Although this ultimatum originated from ECOWAS, its implementation by Nigeria intensified public backlash.

Challenges to ECOWAS’ Military Intervention

Despite ECOWAS’ authorization of military action against Niger’s junta in August 2023, several factors hindered its execution:

Nigerian Senate Opposition:
- The Senate emphasized Nigeria’s constitutional directive for peaceful conflict resolution, opposing any military intervention.
- Senators highlighted shared ethnic ties with Nigerien border communities, framing potential conflict as a direct threat to Nigerians.
Domestic Resistance:
- Nigerians in Niger and at home opposed military intervention.
- Critics accused Tinubu of aligning with Western powers at the expense of regional stability.
Legal Actions:
- Human rights groups and legal experts challenged the intervention in the ECOWAS Court of Justice. They argued the action violated ECOWAS treaties and posed risks to civilian rights.

Resolution and Aftermath

International and domestic pressure led ECOWAS to de-escalate military plans. Following lifted sanctions and changing circumstances, legal cases against the intervention were discontinued. This episode reflects the balancing act Tinubu faced between regional leadership and domestic accountability.

Conclusion

Labeling Tinubu’s foreign policy as a gamble oversimplifies the complexities of his dual roles and the historical context of Nigeria’s diplomacy. While pro-Russian sentiments and criticisms of ECOWAS decisions have emerged, they underscore the intricate dynamics of governance and regional cooperation. Tinubu’s actions reflect continuity in Nigeria’s foreign policy rather than a stark deviation.