The Conversation Africa asked Sheriff Folarin, an international relations expert and the author of a new book, Declining Hegemonic Foreign Policies of Nigeria, to explain the implications of a Nigeria without ambassadors.
Why does a country need ambassadors?
Mutual diplomatic representation is important for understanding and cooperation between states. Diplomatic representatives or ambassadors, high commissioners or envoys facilitate interstate cooperation and relations. This keeps the temperature in the international system cool and stable. Ambassadors are sometimes regarded as the eyes and ears of a state in another state, not in the sense of espionage, but with the understanding that they get information that will be valuable for the home state. They have the privileges, recognition and legal personality accorded the head of state whom they represent.
Keeping a mission, embassy or consulate in another state is a mark of friendship. The reverse is a mark of broken or non-existing ties. For some nations, ambassadors and foreign missions are meant to be strategically situated in a position to secure the national interest of their home governments and states. They do this through political, cultural, military, economic or even technological instruments.
What are the implications of Nigeria not having ambassadors for a year?
There are three. First, it implies that Nigeria does not want to maintain relationships with the international community. The states affected could withdraw their ambassadors too in reciprocity, but they understand that it is not a show of hostility but a local governance issue of finance. It shows further that the country is retreating from the world and chooses isolation.
Second, the world may perceive Nigeria as unable to run its missions as a result of human capital deficiency or government incompetence.
Third, it projects the country as weak – unable to protect and pursue national interests abroad. Citizens suffer too, particularly when they are in need of their government outside Nigeria.
Nigeria may miss opportunities to influence decisions in world politics. Its lack of ambassadors could also jeopardise the quest to be considered as one of the two permanent members in an enlarged UN security council.
However, there may not be significant setbacks if the other full-time embassy staff are efficient and dynamic in the discharge of their duties.
Earlier in May, Nigeria’s foreign affairs minister cited lack of money as the main reason for the government’s failure to appoint ambassadors. How do you see this?
This narrative works against the country. Nigeria is known for being creative, dynamic, active and influential in global politics. Making such an open disclosure works against the country’s reputation.
Has Nigeria descended to the level where all its challenges and failures of government must be linked to financial problems? It projects Nigeria negatively and further diminishes the reputation and respect that have suffered in the last few years.
Running embassies with high calibre, dynamic, creative and knowledgeable ambassadors cannot be optional.
To address the problem, government should cut down the cost of running government and save money to run the country’s embassies. There should be accountability in the revenue generated by the embassies through visa issuance and expenses in the embassies, so that money made can be judiciously used to fund the missions.
Visa fees could be increased to meet the cost of running the embassies. For instance the UK government increased visa fees in 2023 to
pay for vital services and allow more funding to be prioritised for public sector pay rises.
Wastefulness in government, evidenced by the presidential fleet and other government officials in jets and vehicle convoys, can be cut down. The cost of running the National Assembly too should be looked into as a matter of national emergency. Money saved from all these wasteful expenditures can be used for embassies. Financial discipline is required.
How do you think other countries will perceive the absence of Nigeria’s ambassadors in their countries?
They will consider Nigeria as irresponsible, unready for a world of competitiveness in all fields, and not serious about achieving a rebound in regional and global leadership. The derision is already loud.
Sheriff Folarin, Professor of International Relations and Visiting Scholar, Texas State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
