External parties

34

states were favourably disposed to nationalism and struggle for self-governance in Africa and across the world. Bukarambe (2010)

2.4.4. The Frontline States

Since their emergence in 1976, the frontline states of the Southern African region fought the apartheid regime of South Africa with tenacity and unyielding determination. The crumbling of the apartheid regime in 1994 following the transition to a non-racial democratic government was partly as a result of the roles played by the group of Southern African states popularly known as the Frontline States. These states were Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, and Zambia. From 1980, Zimbabwe joined the group following its independence from Britain. The Frontline States was formed in 1970 to co-ordinate their responses to apartheid and formulate a coherent policy towards the militant apartheid regime of Pretoria and also to give support to the various liberation movements across the Southern Africa region.

To this end, the advent of the Frontline States was a welcomed development as it became a powerful force in the struggle to retrench colonialism and racism in Southern Africa Niemann (1993). Thus far, this section has examined the different roles played by other state actors towards the retrenchment of colonialism and its attendant features – such as apartheid. The essence of doing so as earlier noted is to avoid giving the impression that Nigeria was the only country which fought against colonialism in Africa. The above has shown clearly that Nigeria only added its voice to the existing calls for African freedom from colonial rule. Next section discusses Nigeria’s political ambitions within the context of its historical antecedents and

35

the area of African decolonization to the current debates on whether the country can use its historical activities in this regard to strengthen its case for its legitimacy to take some leadership positions in Africa today. A veteran Nigerian diplomat Emeka Anyaoku noted in 2005 that Nigeria’s bid for the United Nations Security Council seat may not be attained solely on the basis of the country’s record of service to Africa’s cause. Explaining Nigeria’s dilemma in Africa, he affirmed that in Africa, it is sometimes natural that the big brother is not so loved.

The retired diplomat and former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth further stated that Nigeria faces some competition within and outside the continent in the race for the UNSC seat.

In line with the above, a retired Ambassador Dapo Fafowora in 2007 advanced the view that Nigeria cannot expect to win the Security Council seat simply on its record or reputation at the UN due to its “domestic condition” which will come into play when the additional seat for Africa in an enlarged UNSC comes under consideration. According to Fafowora, it was this

“domestic condition” that stood in the way of Chief S.O. Adebo being elected UN Secretary-General in succession to (U. Thant) even when it was clear that he was the best candidate for the job at the time. This domestic condition includes inter alia: massive corruption, the Niger Delta crisis, the North-South dichotomy, the Boko Haram terror activities, Mass Poverty in the midst of oil wealth, acute leadership problem, Monetization of electioneering and political process, weak democratic institutions and many such incidents which many commentators within and outside the country have attributed to the absence of a competent, purposeful and responsible leadership in Nigeria.

There is also the view that Nigeria’s recent and current political activities matter more than the country’s historical activities discussed above. Spies (2008) observed that Nigeria’s bid for a UNSC seat might be scuttled by the country’s moral standing and international image which has been tarnished by age-long reputation for corruption and political as well as economic instability. Implicit in this statement is the view that corruption and other political ills operated parallel to each other, which meant that Nigeria gained political advantage while at the same

36

time losing political points. Such contradictions, according to this trajectory, will determine whether Nigeria can claim the “right” to occupy the permanent UNSC seat.

The view expressed above was echoed by Saliu and Omotola (2008) who noted that Nigeria’s credentials in the area of African decolonization and active role in global Affairs; which has been employed by the country to strengthen its case for the UNSC seat might end up not yielding the desired result if urgent and workable steps are not taken to address the lingering worsening state of national security, slow pace of economic recovery despite ongoing reforms, the challenges posed by serious African contenders particularly Egypt and South-Africa; and Nigeria’s continuing image problem; despite unsuccessful attempts to tackle it. Therefore it can be inferred from the above, that Nigeria faces both the domestic and regional challenge in its quest for glory in the global arena.

Even authors who give Nigeria credit for its role in the decolonization struggle concede that this may not be enough to bolster its current campaign. Adeniji (2005) reckoned that Nigeria’s credentials in the UN might not be enough for the country to land the coveted UNSC seat.

Adeniji’s position was premised on the hints that the Arab world is scheming with all its might to have one of their own in Africa at the council. Egypt had since become their preferred choice although the current political crises in Egypt may have reduced the country’s chances to be a contender. This same author in his work, different from the one cited above; advanced his position when he stated that Nigeria’s domestic socio-political and economic realities pose a huge threat to the country’s UNSC ambition. He argues:

The prevailing realities in the Nigerian nation nevertheless remain a limiting factor to its ambition. There is the depressed economy with a large external debt. . .the ugly consequences of a depressed economy are visible enough for all to perceive: collapsed infrastructure and social services, mass poverty with a significant percentage of the

37

population living below the poverty line, rampant corruption, insecurity of life and property. (Adeniji 2005:4)

The author went on to say that the domestic conditions must be made amenable by reviving the economy and ensuring that the present democratic experiment is sustained. He submitted that it will be difficult for the international community to reward a country with a UNSC permanent seat when its domestic front is in shambles. The happenings on the domestic scene showed a country seeking a position of power and responsibility matters a lot. According to Saliu (2009), Nigeria should fix its domestic problems at home before seeking to offer leadership internationally. He lent credence to the above when he advanced the view that the internal happenings in the Nigerian state negate the country’s current ambition for UNSC seat.

The happenings he listed included: absence of good and responsive governance, credible electoral system, internal insecurity as well as, religious and sectarian crisis. According to him these problems might likely jeopardize Nigeria’s bid for permanent seat on the UNSC. The same view is held by Obuoforibo (2011).

Another author who holds similar views is Pham (2007). He posited that the domestic problems constitute a threat to Nigeria’s global political ambitions. In his view these problems include:

weak democratic institutions; absence of good governance; and lack of respect for human rights at home. The author submitted that Nigeria must fix its domestic misfortunes to make its global leadership aspirations credible. There are other opinions with regard to Nigeria’s domestic problems and the country’s UNSC ambition. A former Nigerian foreign minister Bolaji Akinyemi in 2005 corroborated the sentiments made above. He opined that Nigeria’s hope of getting a UNSC seat might be dashed if the country does not get it right domestically. He cited issues such as bad leadership, and mismanagement of state resources by the ruling class to justify his position. According to him Nigeria’s bid will be difficult to attain regardless of its track record in the UN if these problems are not tackled headlong. These views lead to the conclusion that while Nigeria’s role in the independence of many African countries cannot be disputed, a

38

confluence of factors, mainly domestic, stand on the country’s way to getting the enviable UNSC seat.

The sources discussed above provide a sound historical background to Nigeria’s role in the decolonization of Africa. The authors list various activities Nigeria was engaged in since joining the UN in 1960. Importantly, these authors explicitly state that Nigeria did not act in isolation but worked with other countries to achieve its goal of liberating other African countries; this study has also considered relevant literatures to establish the factuality of these submissions by discussing the various roles played by other actors in this regard. But what is worth noting is that none of these authors give the impression that Nigeria planned to use its political activities as a bargaining point at a later stage. For this reason, it is necessary to analyse various statements made by different political actors at the time and also read closely the writings of various authors to establish if there is evidence that Nigeria’s activities over three decades had unstated aims and ambitions. Such an analysis is pertinent today given the debates on whether or not Nigeria is the best candidate for the permanent seat in the UNSC. It is in this area that this study will make a significant contribution.