Page 1 of 8

610

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.8

Publication Date: August 25, 2020

DOI:10.14738/assrj.78.8963.

Udeoji, E. A., & Bariledum, K. (2020). Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, Reciprocity and Africa Centeredness: The Need for a Reconstruction in

the 21st Century. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(8) 610-617.

Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, Reciprocity and Africa Centeredness: The

Need for a Reconstruction in the 21st Century

Dr. Ebele Angela Udeoji

Department Of Political Science

National Open University Of Nigeria

Dr. Kia Bariledum

Department Of History And International Diplomacy

Rivers State University, Portharcourt

ABSTRACT

Nigeria foreign policy in the 21st century has attracted a great deal of

attention, as the dynamics on the world stage and domestic realities

continue to impose challenges for the citizens. While many countries

have appreciated the new realities of world politics and have however

adjusted to the new global situations, Nigeria is yet to adjust her foreign

policy with domestic realities. Thus, the study explores Nigeria’s Africa

centeredness’ policy with the view to ascertain its relevance or

otherwise in the 21st century. Descriptive research method with

explanatory variant are used. Findings show that, for as long as the

objective of Nigeria’s foreign policy is to ensure protection of black and

African interest, Nigeria cannot but find it necessary to offer solidarity

with African states. However, because very little has happened to show

that she has made so much sacrifice in African affairs, the study

recommends amongst others that the scope of Nigeria’s reciprocity

should be restricted to issues that are more apparently in consonance

with her national interest.

Keywords: Nigeria, Foreign Policy, Reciprocity, Africa.

INTRODUCTION

Nigerian foreign policy, especially in the 21st century has continued to attract a great deal of

attention, as the dynamics on the global scene and the domestic realities continue to impose

challenges for all actors. While many countries have readily appreciated the new realities of world

politics and have however, adjusted to the new global situation, using foreign policy to improve the

quality of their international engagements, to address major domestic issues or problems, Nigeria

on the other hand, appear not to use her foreign policy to resolve the many contradiction of national

realities that have continued to weigh down her development efforts.

Nigeria is hardly different from other African countries where lack of development is the

distinguishing hallmark, yet, it is a common knowledge that Nigerian’s foreign policy revolves

essentially around Africa problems. Africa centeredness of Nigeria’s foreign policy holds that

solidarity with other African countries is the fundamental interest of their foreign policy. Inside the

Page 2 of 8

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.78.8963 611

Udeoji, E. A., & Bariledum, K. (2020). Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, Reciprocity and Africa Centeredness: The Need for a Reconstruction in the 21st Century.

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(8) 610-617.

confines of the broad objectives, that are routinely upheld and promoted is the practice of

reciprocity.

This study invariably assumes two core objectives first involve conceptual clarification. Here the

study would attempt conceptual analysis of two major concepts, foreign policy and reciprocity.

These concepts must be decoded and elaborated in its entirety to remove any ambiguities or

contradiction to our understanding of their usage in the context of this discourse.

The second objective and perhaps the major objective is to identify and isolate for discussion and

critical interrogation dynamics and manifestation of reciprocity in Nigeria’s African foreign policy.

Actually, the presumption is that reciprocity really exists as an international relations practice. In a

complex world of interdependence, application of reciprocity is an essential tool used by sovereign

states in all facets of inter-state relations. States actions are restrained by reciprocity. This is

because the action of state toward one another is a matter of give and take. In this sense, a measure

state gives is the same measure it expects or actually gets back from the beneficiary of its favour

(Tred, 2010).

The principle of reciprocity in Nigeria’s foreign policy, especially Africa centeredness approach

deserves some intellectual investigation, because some Nigerian international relations analysis

calls for a paradigm shift in reciprocity behavior of Nigeria with Africa, while others demised such

shift, saying, it is a manifest destiny for Nigeria to address African problems.This, invariably implies

that there are contending issues in this regard.

CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

Foreign policy

Foreign policy is the entire range of activities a nation pursues in its day-to-day relations with other

nations, to achieve its national interest, as defined by its leaders. Foreign policy is a country’s

response to the world outside or beyond its own frontier or boundaries, responses which are

products of environmental factors (Northedje, 1968). Foreign policy is a product of both domestic

and external influence. Domestic factors, for example, help to determine the national interests and

the specific objectives. In the same vein, External environment has a great deal of influence over the

shape and even the mechanism, methodology and instruments of nation’s international

engagements and diplomacy.

Every nation’s foreign policy is in the service of it national interests which among others include

security, socio-economic welfare, and power (Bassey, 2015). However, a remarkable thing about

the conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy in Africa is that, it lacks conscious effort by the decision

makers to link her various foreign policy engagements on the continent to the desideratum of

transforming the structure of the nation’s economic underdevelopment as a strategic objective.

Reciprocity

Etymologically, the concept “reciprocity” is derived from French words

“reciprocateandreciprogue”, and Latin word “reciprocus”, which means “return action, response,

reaction and exchange (vide Dictionary bac, 2013). Reciprocity is one of the most and widely

acknowledged practice in the field of international relations. However, its conceptualization

remains a matter of controversy. Much of the confusion and controversy stems from the fact that it

Page 3 of 8

612

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 8, August-2020

means different things to different people. Moreover, the trouble continue as the concept is not very

straight forward, this is why Goldstem and Treemon (1990) acknowledge it as pattern of state

interactions; as an agreement believed to be enforced by threats of reciprocal retaliation against

defections from the agreement.

The definitional problem notwithstanding, attempt have been made by scholars to conceptualize it,

to fill the knowledge gaps in the understanding of the workings, the logic and role of reciprocity in

international relations.

One scholar whose work profoundly influences our understanding of “reciprocity” is Eze (2010). In

his words, reciprocity is

The exchange of roughly equivalent values in which the actions of each party are

contingent on the prior actions of the others in such a way that good is returned forgood

and bad for bad.

Bassey (2015) and Okon (2015) in their separateintellectual discourses maintained that reciprocity

implies actions that are contingent on rewarding reactions from others and that reactions cease

when expected reactions are not forthcoming. Without running a repeat of all the scholars’

postulations, it is apt to point out that the logic of this principle centre around collective good

problem. It is generally believed that collective good problem could be solved through the driven

forces of reward and punishment. In this regard, Nation states are expected to contribute to matters

that serve the interests of mankind (Nweke, 1983).

Accordingly, countries that contributed immensely to the achievement of “collective good” should

be positively rewarded, either by the beneficiaries of good gestures or group of nations that find

support in their external exploit from reciprocal behavior, while punishing those that pursue self- interest at the expense of others. Therefore, the concept implies power relations based on mutual

“extension of reward” and mutual application of sanctions, compensatory or retaliatory, striving or

underpinning, requital, retribution, counter-attack, counter-blow, revenge, and vengeance.

In international relations, the practice of reciprocity must be consistent with the principle of

sovereignty and self-help.It is for this fact that Akutermios (1995) advise that, Nigeria’s African

foreign policy should be redesigned, while not ignoring Nigeria’s solidarity with African countries,

he suggested certain restraint in the country’s pre-occupation, a serious understanding of and

perhaps commitment to Afro-countries problems, as not careful articulation of this principle and

practice could hamper the achievement of national realities.

Reciprocity involves behavior that returns ill for ills (Negative reciprocity) and as well good for good

(positive reciprocity). This is an affirmation of the Biblical principle “that everyone shall be treated

accordingly.” International jurisprudent theorists recognize both perspectives, and argued that

reciprocity take positive meaning, in the context of economic relations, where cooperation for

cooperation, give and take relationship enhanced mutual benefits for both parties and on the other

side, a negative meaning when reciprocity, as retaliation include retorsion and reprisal

(Okon,2015).