What The Papers Say
National Concord of Nigeria, December 9, 1985
Towards the foreign policy debate
When on his assumption of office last August, President Ibrahim Babangida criticised his predecessor's foreign policy conduct as incoherent and inconsistent, the President did simultaneously indicate that the nation's relations with the wider world, in future, be restored to a more steady course. Three months after that declaration and in an apparent move towards the realisation of the administration's stated goal, President Babangida recently served notice that a national foreign policy conference at which all sections of the society would be amply represented will be organised next year.The decision by the government to initiate a national foreign policy debate is, on several grounds, most commendable. It is, for one, manifestly in keeping with the Babangida Administration's public participation approach to the formulation of crucial national policies.
Although, there are critics who may pick quarrels with this model of policy-making, the fact is clear that not only do such persons constitute only a negligible minority, but their opinion is entirely at variance with that of the Nigerian mainstream. By throwing its doors open to the widest range of contributions from the public, the government would not only have partly made up for the absence of consultative institutions that accompanied the advent of military rule, it would also be availing itself of the assurance that its final stand on any issue, when that stand is taken, carries the necessary support of the majority. Viewed in this context, therefore, the necessity of a national foreign policy dialogue becomes not only transparently obvious, but in fact, patently unquestionable.
Over the past decade, since the much-celebrated era of the Muhammed administration's dynamic foreign policy, the nation's relations with the world has seemingly been afflicted by a confusion of interests and unclarity of objectives. Part of this confusion, some observers have noted, arose when the vagaries of the international economy began to take a severe toll on Nigeria's domestic situation. It has since remained a near-impossible task, reconciling the sobering realities of a weak, dependent national economy to the lofty demands of a forceful and dynamic foreign policy. The 1986 national conference, hopefully, will serve to focus the nation's attention squarely on that paradox, and possibly generate options towards its meaningful resolution.
The national dialogue should also touch on other aspects of our foreign policy posture, which for years have been the foci of controversy between Nigerians of different persuasions. Should we, for instance, maintain our membership of the Commonwealth, the non-aligned movement, even the Economic Community of West African States? Should we restore diplomatic relations with Israel or forge stronger ties with the East-bloc nations? What are the visible benefits of any particular position which we hold today or the perceivable advantages of a stand we may take tomorrow?
Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred million voices contend. Out of the contentious and controversies, will our guide to the future be found.
Ghanaian Times, December 2, 1985
A game of nets
The case is like being caught up in a net; the more you struggle the more you are entangled in the net. And so we see the Reagan Administration struggling hard to get out of the net in which it has been caught up over its CIA activities in Ghana. And the retaliatory measures which it seeks to take against us could only entangle it in more mistakes.By the US government's own admission, it committed a mistake in ordering CIA activities to destabilize Ghana. In a bid to prevent the CIA agents caught in Ghana from revealing the clandestine activities which they were instructed to carry out, the US government negotiated with the Ghanaian authorities not to put the traitors before court but to let them go. In return the US has undertaken to desist from further CIA activities in Ghana.
After this open admission of mistake and guilt for it, the US government would have committed another mistake in expelling four Ghanaian diplomats in retaliation for the four US diplomats expelled from Ghana last week. The expulsion of the Americans was related to the CIA activities in Ghana. The charges against the four Americans were clean, the culprits had no defence against the charges, and the charges were clear to both sides.
However, in a frantic afterthought aimed at disentangling itself from the embarrassment of being caught pants down over its CIA activities in Ghana, the US government would make the second mistake of taking an impetuous retaliatory action without considering its merits. If you expel four innocent Ghanaians who have done nothing, what is it to prove?
In a frantic effort to rub off from the eyes of Ghanaians the stain of its subversive CIA activities against Ghana, the US government quickly sent a naval ship loaded with souvenirs and a dance band to entertain people in Accra and Tema in a supposed expression of US friendship and good feelings towards Ghana. We said they were welcome, but since we had already caught the CIA's hand in our soup we would all the same examine that hand, souvenirs and dance band or not.
The dance band friendship trick did not work, and the US turns to quickly sour that it would consider withdrawing aid to Ghana the very opposite of the friendship which it was proclaiming just a few days before!
When the US government's retaliatory measures against Ghana have become very clear, we shall deal with them and their implications. But it is necessary now for all to begin to look seriously at the principles involved - friendship, morality the right of every sovereign people to resist being bullied, and the use of economic aid as a political weapon against smaller countries.
