Foreign Policy Analysis : Compare and Contrast Nigeria’s Relationship with the U.S.A. Essay

INTRODUCTIONA clownishs immaterial insurance policy is a set of goals outlining how the region will interact with different countries economically, politically, socially and militarily, and to a lesser extent how the country will interact with non-state actors. The aforementioned fundamental interaction is evaluated and monitored in attempts to maximize benefits of multi-lateral transnational cooperation. Foreign policies atomic weigh 18 desired to help project a countrys national interest, national security ideological goals and economic prosperity. This can decease as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations or even through exploitation.Foreign policy analysis is the systematic study of and research into the processes and theories of alien policy.This paper seeks to evaluate the family (economic and armed forces) that has existed between Nigeria and the unite States of America. (U.S.A) in ii very different epochs. (1960-1966), post independence, and between 1999- 2003, the immediate democratic era by and by a lengthy post-militaryinterregnum. The paper shall consist of an introduction and segments on conceptual elucidations, theoretical framework, X-ray of topic infra study, and the conclusion drawn from the study shall as well be presented.CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONInternational Relations Rossenau, (1961). Views world-wide relations as the study of the transactions, contacts, flows of in pass wateration between and among separately organized nation state. Holsti, (1972). Defines internationalist relations to encompass all forms of interaction between the members of distinct societies. Adeniran, (1983). submits that international relations is an area of study which focuses on the political, economic and other interactions among international actors and the inter-state systems. economical relations is a relationship between devil or more states that revolves around the promotion, transpose of finance, industry and oecumenic tra ding activities. armament relations A military is an organization authorized by its nation to use force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or perceived threats. The military is made up of a force or forces with a capability to execute national defense policy. Military relations deal with the interaction between and among nation states to enhance capability development especially as it affects the strategic, operational, logistic and tactical requirements their military forces. Military relations are characterized by the exchange of combat arms and support services. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThe theoretical framework within which this study shall be conducted, is the ratiocination making approach. The theory focuses attention on the processes of public decisiveness making. A political action has the character of a decision taken by about actors in a specific stead through a particular process. Political actions can be understood by referring to the person who took the decision and the inter-active processes by which the decision was reached. While following the decision making approach, the political scientist has to encounter a complex set of social psychological and institutional processes. Hence, this approach has to draw on some(prenominal) concepts developed in sociology, social psychology and psychology. Mahajan, (200039).The decision making approach has two fundamental purposes one is the identification of crucial structures in the political realm where changes take place, where decisions are made, where actions are initiated and carried out. While, the other is a systematic analysis of the decision making behavior which leads to action. In other words, the decision approach focuses inquiry on actors called decision makers and on the state defined as the decision unit. Hence, the actions of the state are seen through the actions of the decision makers. The crux here is that if a sufficient knowledge of the beh aviour and activities of the known actors is established, it can lay the foundation for the explanation of a decision. Okere, (2000115) NIGERIAS FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVESForeign policy objectives are built upon some general principles or national interests which is embodied in the nations constitution. Foreign policy objectives of any nation can be classified into a tercet of military strategic, political/diplomatic and economic/cultural imperatives. In the first republic, (1960-1966) which constitutes a part of this studys focal point the principal objectives that manoeuver Nigerias foreign policy, were enunciated by sir, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa the first prime quantity minister of Nigeria, to include among others -Respect for the s everywhereeignty and territorial integrity of other states. - no-interference in the internal affairs of other states.-The promotion of functional cooperation among African states. Chapter II, sub section 19 of the 1999 constitution outlines the forei gn policy objectives of Nigeria between 1999-2003. Which constitutes the second leg of the studys duration frame. What is however certain is that under the two different epochs that Nigerias foreign policy is to be subjected to scrutiny by this study, the principal objective of the foreign policy has been to promote and protect the countrys national interest in its interactions and relationships with specific countries in the international system. (Abdullahi 2004). NIGERIA-AMERICA RELATIONS Motives for Collaborationchairwoman Kennedy once notable thatEvery nation determines its policies in term of its own interestThe traditional American foreign policy encompasses both moral idealism and raw self-interests. The get together States primary interest in relation to Nigeria is petroleum. As a voracious consumer of the countrys sweet (i.e., low-sulfur) petroleum, America recognizes Nigerias worth as the largest vegetable oil producer in Africa and the fifth largest in the OPEC. Niger ia has been one of the largest exporters of crude oil to the united States. American companies such as shell, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron have substantial investings in the lucrative Nigerian oil industry, which, along with other Western oil companies, they dominate. Nigeria led a peacekeeping mission as part of the Economic participation of West Africa States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) that helped to stabilize long-time U.S. allies Liberia and Sierra Leone. A third U.S. interest is the maintenance of America cultural-historical linkages to the country of Nigeria. A great number of Americans trace their roots to Africa. Many of those Americans, including entertainer-scholar Paul b. Robeson (1898-1976), trace those origins to Nigeria. Last, but sure not least, America needs Nigerias help in its campaign against international drug trafficking.The economic hardships in Nigeria, resulted in the emergence of a significant drug-dependent culture and in the conversion of Nigerian borders i nto a major route for the trafficking of cocain and heroin into the United States. The United States also looks to Nigeria to help reduce the number of Americans victimized by the offer of Nigerian business opportunities that are too well-grounded to be true. according to one estimate, Americans lose $2 billion annually to white collar crime syndicates establish in Nigeria. Nigeria sees in the United States a truelove buyer of its oil. Although Nigerias share of the U.S. market has fluctuated over the years, the United States remains a primary purchaser of Nigerian crude oil. Second, Nigeria values political ties with America. The United States is one of the roughly functionful countries in the world, and the two countries share similar demographic features such as ethnic, economic, and religious complexities. Nigeria relies on these political connections as it experiments with a presidential style of government. Third, like many evolution countries, Nigeria seeks to tap into A merica technological capabilities for its manpower development needs.Tens of thousands of Nigerians have flocked to the United States in search of high education. Nigeria will maximize the benefit of its relationship with the United States by identifying and exploiting the points at which the two nations interests overlap. Nigeria and U.S. interests converge with respect to the purchase and sale of crude oil and the demand of maintaining cordial political relations. (Aka, 2005) It should be noted that in the period under review, (1960-1966), it was the prime minister that hold a near monopoly of control over the countrys foreign policy (Aluko, 1977). For Nigeria on the other hand, there was a compelling need to industrialize the economy and modernize agriculture immediately aft(prenominal) independence. To achieve this objectives, the country would require foreign aid and the diversification of the countrys overseas market America was one of the countries she looked up to for t he injection of the demand capital to fund her development plans. NIGERIA UNITED STATES RELATIONS (1960-1966)For centuries, United States foreign policy has been outwardly characterized by its diplomatic and economic encouragement of fledging democracies around the world. In particular, the nations of Africa and particularly Nigeria are seen to benefit from Americas idealistic foreign Agenda. (Aka, 2005). It should however be noted that few foreign political actions are based entirely in good will they are more often rooted in prudence and rationality. Although promoting body politic may, as was earlier stated, be a sufficient national interest in and of itself, such idealistic abstraction is usually augmented by more concrete or material considerations. This is certainly true for the United States interest in relations with Nigeria. (Aka, 2005). There are a plethora of cultural, historical and political reasons why Nigeria has been important to the U.S. These range form populatio n, oil, resource and strategic military importance. Nigerias colonial record left behind external economic relations policy that was closely linked with the west. This go along to have profound impact on the countrys external behaviour even after independence on 1st October, 1960 (Aluko, 1977). Therefore, The Nigerian foreign policy between 1960 1966 was politically and economically aligned (in spite of the non-alignment principle) to the west especially Britain and America. In main, due tocolonial hangover (Abullahi, 2004).In recognition of the impudently independent Nigerias potentials for a mutually beneficial relationship, the United States of America was represented at the independence celebrations by the Governor of crude-York State, Mr. Nelson Rockefeller. Immediately after, on October 7, 1960, florescence Minister Balewa traveled to vernal-York to register Nigeria as the 99th member of the United Nations thereby becoming a recognized member of the international confe deration. While in the U.S, the prime minister met and invited President Eisenhower to visit Nigeria at the earliest opportunity. Thus, it is clear that from the first week of independence, Nigeria had established a cordial relationship with the United States of America. (Clark, 1991). It was in the note of this warm relationship between these two giant states that President Kennedy extended an invitation to Nigerias prime minister to visit the U.S. on 21st July 1961. While in America, the Nigerian brainpower of Government was accorded the rare honour of addressing a joint session of the United States congress. Wherein he stated, Our affinity with the U.S is two fold a account statement of common struggles to achieve devoiddom from anything that is oppressive to the human spirit. Also, a blood affinity- between our two countries, there resides the largest concentration of peoples with African blood. (Clark, 1991)The Americans stated that Nigeria was a very important friend of t he United States. Balewa held a meeting with President Kennedy at the oval chest together with secretary of state Dean rusk to discuss military relations between the two states as well as the situation in Angola and Congo. Situations where the two nations had conflicting interests. On the economic front, Nigeria appealed to the U.S for care in building the Niger dam for power generation purposes, comparing the project to the Tennesse Dam Authority. At the end of the visit, a joint statement was issued by the two nations emphasizing the U.S economic aid to Nigeria in the areas of agrarian production and public health care services. American investments into the Nigerian economy grew and amounted to over $800 million and over a third of American total investments in Africa. (Clark Ibid, Aluko 1977)In concluding this part of the work, it is evident that America had a profound security, political, and economic interest in Africa and Nigeria as a regional power was seen as bellwether nation in the period under study. This explains the warm economic and military relations between the two nations. NIGERIA AMERICA 1999 2003(The years of Restoration)The election of Olusegun Obasanjo, a retired general and former military head of state from 1976 to 1979 marked a historic point in the history of the Nigeria-U.S relations. Obasanjos ascendancy to the Nigerian Presidency was warmly received by the United States especially because the preceding regime of Gen. Sani Abacha had a very strained relationship with the United States over a wide range of issues that included Human rights violations and Democratization.The optimism and excitement of the Americans derived from a past experience of friendly relations with General Obasanjo as Head of state. In fact, the first American President to visit Nigeria was Jimmy carter when Obasanjo was military Head of state. (Abdullahi, 2004). At the political level, shortly after assumption of office in May 1999, president Obasanjo had paid a visit to then President Bill Clinton to hold bilateral talks and also with incumbent President Bush. American-Nigeria relations grew in bounds within this period. The removal of visa restrictions, increased high-level visits of US officials, discussions of future assistance and the granting of a national interest certification on counter-narcotics effective in March 1999, strengthened the ties of friendship between the two nations and Nigeria emerged as a key partner of the U.S on the continent. (Msn.com)Two American Presidents, Bill Clinton and George Bush visited Nigeria in August 2000 and July 2003 respectively. ECONOMIC RELATIONSEconomic assistance from the U.S to Nigeria increased within the period under study. Rising to $78.5 million in 2000 from 23.6 Million in 1999. In 2003, US economic assistance to Nigeria is estimated at $ 65.2 million. The American challenge in its policy towards Nigeria was to formulate a substantive fusion against the background that Nigeria provides 8percent of Americas oil needs. (Msn.com) The United States worked closely with the central bank of Nigeria and other relevant institutions to improve the environment for investment in agriculture through policy reforms at the national and state levels. Other trade initiatives by the U.S government included capacity building in customs operations, policy reforms to encourage trade exchanges, African growth and opportunity act (AGOA) incentives for bilateral trade. Nigeria also benefited from the initiative to end hunger in Africa plan, among some(prenominal) other programmes. (Msn.com) What all of this demonstrates is the fact that between 1999-2003 the economic relations between Nigeria was not wholly very cordial and engaging, but it was characterized by the inflow of several technical aid packages intent to help boost the fortunes of the Nigerian economy. MILITARY RELATIONSIn the area of defense relations between Nigeria and the U.S, the United States has back up the peacekeeping and simulation centres at the war college in Abuja-the only one of its kind in Africa. Other areas of U.S Nigeria defense relations in the period under review included personnel training, developmental and technical aid, arms sales to Nigeria, law enforcement co-operation in border control and against arms smuggling and oil theft. Military cooperation between Nigeria and U.S has been clearly manifested in the effort at resolving the Liberian crises. Wherein the U.S provided logistical equipment to the Nigerian military.The training of Nigeria military personnel in American institutions intensified. The United States also offered to provide specialized training and some facilities to the Nigeria police within this period. However, the military relationship between Nigeria and America was not without challenges or even tensions, for example, Nigerians, civilians and military alike were not keen on U.S military presence in their country. Many still attribute General Obasan jos replacement of Victor Malu as army chief to Malus open opposition to the increased military co-operation with the United States. It is the thought out opinion of this paper, that Nigeria-U.S relations within this period, especially as it concerns the economic and military ties, was in a state of growth and expansion (Aka 2005). A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TWO EPOCHSAmerican Nigerian relations in the first republic (1960-1966) waspredicated upon a mutual need for each other by the two nations. It was a relationship of mutual respect and friendliness. But most importantly, it was a dignified relationship for Nigeria which though a very young independent state, had effectively mobilized her resources to earn a respectful height within the community of nations in such a short time. (Clark 1991). Nigeria had cause to request for the in flow of American capital into her economy but even this did not fall her sense of pride and independence. Whenever the need arose, Nigeria did not shy away from taking a different position to that of America. e.g. on the division of the world into blocs, Angola etc. The Head of Nigerian government in this period, Sir, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was awarded a honorary doctorate of laws by the university of New York. He was also made an honorary citizen of three cities Chicago, New York and New Orleans (Clark 1991). Between 1999 and 2003, was a period of reengagement for the two nations after a near total breakdown in relations. But this, time the power dynamics were radically different from what obtained between 1960 and 1966.In 1999, the United States of America was not just an alternative power bloc in the world that had another power bloc to contend with. She was now a sole, undisputed world power with an unrivalled economic and military might. (Abdullahi, 2004), whereas Nigeria, in spite of the potentials she is endowed with and the promise she had held in 1960, was a nation almost on her knees, a nation that had retarded in j ust about every aspect of its conduct and was attempting to rediscover itself. antecedent to 1999, the U.S had stood with the Nigerian people in their struggle against dictatorship. In this era, it was not a relationship of two equals or near equals, No It was an interaction between a world power and an oil producing strong state, that had fallen into a deep socio-economic comma. It was a hand out relationship. Nigeria looked up to the United States for every form of assistance. The U.S provided much(prenominal) for Nigeria supposedly, in the spirit of encouraging democratic disposal. Especially, in form of economic and military aid packages. However, American oil corporations had unfettered access to Nigerias oil in return. But despite the exchange of visits between the presidents of the two countries, and the increased co-operation between the two countries, America refused to grant Nigerias request for a debt cancellation. It maintained that Nigeria had the resources to pay o ff her debts. The top hat Nigeria was offered is adebt rescheduling. CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, this work was introduced within the frame work of foreign policy analysis, a conceptual clarification of relevant theoretical framework within which the study is located has been stated, Nigerias foreign policy objectives has been examined, motives for the collaboration between Nigeria and the U.S was X-rayed. The work also attempted an cutting analysis of the economic and military relationship between the countries in the two different epochs as it was required to do. This work shall now proceed to state some recommendations that should form the basis of a policy of relationship between Nigeria and the United States of America. First, greater consistency in the U.S-Nigeria military-security relationship. Washington should recognize that its national interest is best served if Nigeria is able to be a force for democracy and stability in the region. Military and security collaboration betw een the two countries and in Africa generally, can only increase, given the threat of terrorism world wide. Second, increasing Americas diplomatic reach within Nigeria by establishing arenas for U.S. Exchanges with critical areas, such as its oil-producing areas in the Niger Delta and in Northern Nigeria where the U.S closed consular offices. Such diplomatic reach could help the U.S to make a contribution to conflict management in Nigeria.Third, developing a strategy for an economic action agenda in Nigeria, which must involve business and government actors in the U.S and Nigeria, as well as inviting stimulus from the non-governmental sector. Such a strategy should focus on three priorities first, an acknowledgement of the business communitys responsibility to be a constructive pseudo in Nigerias economic and democratic transition second, a focus on restructuring the extractive industry to curb corruption and third, a focus on restoring agricultural industries to help alleviate ru ral poverty, curb rural-urban pressures and strengthen trade and export. Fourth, eliminating debt overhang and investing in education, health and human development and fifth, strengthening democratic institutions and governance structures which involves supporting democratic dialogue across the political spectrum, as well as assisting in training for elections and parliamentary and political party development. Lastly, Americas support for Nigeria should now be stronger than ever, with the re-institution ofdemocratic government. The touchstone should be genuinely reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships unaffected by the vagaries of power and party necktie in Washington a policy that constantly engages the people and the leadership of Nigeria, that is not an appendage of any general policy that constantly engages the people and the leaders of Nigeria, that is not an appendage of any general policy, and that recognizes the fact that only a fundamental restructuring of the po litical and economic systems can bring about true democracy in Nigeria. (Aka, 2005 Clark, 1991 Abdullahi, 2004)REFERENCESAdeniran, T (1983). Introduction to international relations. Lagos MacmillanJohari, J.C. (1982). Comparative politics London Sterling publishers.Okere, J.O (2000). Theory, theorizing in international relations and politics Owerri Achugo Publishers.Mahajan, V.G (2000) Political Theory New Delhi Chand Publishers.Abdullahi M.Y. (2004). The web of Nigerian politics. Abuja AnnyPrints Productions.Ojo. O, and Sesay, (2002). Concepts in International Relations. Ile-Ife University Press.Aluko, O, (ed) (1977). The foreign policy of African states. London Hodder and Stughton.Maduagwu O.M., and Mohammed A.S. (eds) (2004). Challenges and prospects of Democratization in Nigeria. Fulbright Alumni Association of Nigeria, Book of Reading No. 2.Aka, P.C. (2005). United States of America and Support for Nigeria democratization in American political sciences review Vol, 106, No. 14 ( December, 2005).Clark, T. (1991). A Right Honourable Gentleman The life and times of Sir, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. Zaria Huda-huda Publishing Company.Msn. Com (nd). retrieved October 17, 2008 from httpabout.com/african history.Msn. Com (n.d). retrieved October 18, 2008 from httpwww.usembassy nigeria. org.Holsti K.S, (1967). International Politics New Jersey Prentice Hall. Rosenau, J. (1971). The Scientific study o f foreign policy. New York the free press.