By Zik Gbemre
When recent reports revealed that President Muhammadu Buhari gave indication of his plan to undertake the review of Nigerian foreign missions with a view to pruning them down, we could not help but ponder on this move to see if it is actually a step in the right direction. While on the outlook it appears to be a step in the right direction, for it would be of great benefit to the nation’s economic wellbeing, especially in the face of lean revenue due to fallen oil price, however, on close examination, there is need for the government to apply caution and wisdom in its plans.
The intending exercise, according to President Buhari, would afford the government the opportunity to determine those foreign missions that are essential for Nigeria’s interest. President Buhari, who said that the review would determine the number of essential missions Nigeria needs to maintain abroad so that appropriate standards and quality can be maintained, said there was no point of Nigeria operating missions all over the world “with dilapidated facilities and demoralized members of staff” when the need for some of the missions was questionable. In his words: “Let us keep only what we can manage. We cannot afford much for now. There is no point in pretending.” The President also called for the record of former government officials and other persons still using diplomatic and official passports illegally, saying that his administration will take necessary action against them.
The President had said it would be too expensive to maintain the 119 foreign missions Nigeria has due to the economic situation of the country after he was briefed on the activities of Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Permanent Secretary, Ambassador Bulus Lolo and other officials of the ministry. While we believe there is no need for Nigeria to continue maintaining foreign missions across the world whose inputs in protecting the nation’s interests overseas are grossly insignificant or nothing to write home about, we also believe that there is need for the government and the committee it intends to set up to sit down and carefully look at these issues before final decisions are made on them.
Some stakeholders have argued that Nigeria should only focus on considering and maintaining Regional missions and countries within the United Nation (UN), instead of having foreign mission in every country. However, the problem with this is that there are 193 United Nations member states (which is far more than the 119 foreign missions Nigeria maintains currently), and each of them is a member of the United Nations General Assembly. While others have argued that the diplomatic community would not take the country serious if she goes on to reduce its missions abroad taking cognizance of the position it occupies in Africa in particular and globally in general. Those arguing in this light like Nigeria’s former Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN), Ambassador Umunna Humphrey Orjiako, noted that “no actors in the field of diplomacy are likely to take a country seriously if the volume and reach of its foreign policy fluctuates with the quantity and price of crude oil it sells in the world market.”
Orjiako, who posited that the premise of saving money by closing missions is misleading if not out rightly false, said: “Any knowledgeable diplomat will confirm that the financial cost of mission closure, let alone the diplomatic costs, in the short and long terms, outweighs any savings that may accrue. You incur unintended debts, liabilities and bad faith due to untimely breach of contracts, payment and restitution of trust could take decades. Instead of closure, I would propose that we emulate several other countries that run ‘Smart Missions’.” Orjiako emphasized further that: “Right here in Abuja, several countries operate two to three-man missions with a sprinkling of locally-recruited members of staff. I bet you they do a more efficient and effective job than the amorphous, personnel-heavy missions we operate overseas. All it requires to run a Smart Mission is training, equipment and dedication and the costs could be cut by well over 70 per cent.”
There is no doubt that the Nigerian Government seriously needs to trim the number of its foreign missions but we believe this should not be done hastily or irrationally. But rather, perhaps there is need to take a thorough look at the country’s current 119 foreign missions to examine what Nigeria has been benefitting or has not befitted in relation to each of these foreign country concerned over the years. If a world-power country like the United States of America (USA) with its vast population, size, number of States and economic resources could have only 176 foreign missions across the world, then Nigeria should no business maintaining 119 foreign missions. The so called ‘personnel-heavy’ missions overseas should be done away with if there bilateral impact is nothing to write home about. This should guide the committee that will be set up to review the foreign missions, to know those that should be closed or those that require being operated as ‘Smart Missions’.
According to Wikipedia, Nigeria, being the most populous African country, has a “moderately large network of diplomatic missions”. The country has significant influence in Africa and in various multilateral fora, including the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Commonwealth and the African Union (AU). Nigeria first started sending twelve diplomatic personnel overseas to serve in British missions from 1957. Three years later upon independence, the country had its own foreign ministry, headed by the then Foreign Minister Dr.Jaja Wachukwu. Now the Nigerian foreign ministry has over 2,000 officers.
We can see that indeed Nigerian foreign missions need to be reduced. However, we would have preferred if this line of action is being initiated by the government, not because of the falling oil revenue and the government’s need to save cost of operations, but because as a nation, we need to only maintain foreign missions that would benefit our interests amongst the diplomatic community and such foreign missions should also be operated as Smart Missions that would not be avenues through which our nation’s resources are wasted. It is never wise for any government to make ‘permanent decisions’ that are based on or resulted from ‘temporal situations’. For instance, if the government says it is too expensive to maintain the 119 foreign missions Nigeria has “due to the economic situation of the country” at the moment, and as such it wants to close come of them down, what happens when and if the economic fortunes of the country changes for the better? Will the Nigerian government in the future want to reopen those closed down foreign missions? How would other nations within the diplomatic community view us?
The truth is that there might be bilateral relations with foreign missions that would be of immense help to the nation in the future. It is in the light of these possibilities and circumstances that may arise, that we strongly advise the Presidency not to be hasty in taking any major decision with its plans to reduce the country’s foreign missions, which we are in support of.
Zik Gbemre, JP.
National Coordinator
Niger Delta Peace Coalition (NDPC)
No.28, Opi Street, Ugboroke Layout, Effurun-Warri,
P.O. Box 2254, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria.
Tel: +2348026428271
+2348052106013
Website:www.ndpc-zik.org
