CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background to the study

The study examined the press under president Olusegun Obasanjo's seek to attain the difference
in the objective to ascertain the first term as president of Nigeria the year 1999-2003
administrating countries on their own, that's to resort to any other state.
Time and again, observers of Nigeria’s politics have predicted so far incorrectly—the nation’s
ineluctable demise. Recently, this multiethnic country has been coping with intense political
strains, including vexatious issues of presidential tenure and entitlement to that office. Boulder,
Colo.: (Lynne Rienner, 2019)
In Nigeria, presidential elections are the main events of extended electoral exercises that I nvolve
voting to fill the bicameral national assembly, the 36 state legislatures, and the corresponding
gubernatorial offices required by Nigeria’s federal system. The electoral sequences of 1999 and
2003 were monitored by external as well as domestic observers, who voiced scathing criticisms
of electoral malpractice. Yet the Nigerian public was willing to live with the results of both sets
of elections.1 The great game of politics in Nigeria is perilously rough and at times lawless, but
one constitutional rule in particular has had broad support: The president and the governors are
all limited to two terms in office. (Winter–Spring 2017)
As president since 1999, former general Olusegun Obasanjo has burnished his legacy of
engagement in two transitions from military dictatorship to constitutional government (in 1979 as
retiring head of state and in 1999 as a presidential candidate) by affirming his resolute opposition
to militarism as a form of government. To that end, he has raised the level of military
professionalism, stressed a zero-tolerance policy toward would-be putschists in the armed forces,
and overseen an administration that has taken the lead in delegitimizing military coups and
restoring democratic governments elsewhere in Africa.2 The president has also steered Nigeria
toward greater macroeconomic stability and has won international acclaim for his fight against
endemic corruption. (Robert I. Rotberg, ed 2018), therefore., the study is to examine the press
under Olusegun obasanjo’s first term as president of Nigeria in the year 1999-2003.

1.2 Statement of the research problem.

 Nigeria’s international image which received international approval in the early days of
independence due to her pragmatic foreign policy, leading role in peace keeping
operations, decolonization posture and rich natural resources, suddenly became horrified
when the military got ingrained in the domestic politics of national governance and
implementing various domestic and foreign policies that were very unpopular and
anachronistic with the international community. As situations became intolerable in
Nigeria due to abuse of human rights and maladministration by the successive military
juntas, many Nigerians flee abroad in search of greener pastures and better lives.
Expectedly, some Nigerians in Diaspora resorted to dubious and sharp practices in their
countries of sojourn. These made Nigeria’s image to nose-dive. But things became worst
during the inglorious days of General Sani Abacha’s rule.

The reign of Gen. Abacha’s military putsch was notorious for his very poor human rights
records, which peaked with the summary execution of the nine Ogoni minority
environmental activists, including Ken Saro Wiwa, in 1995, and the indefinite
incarceration without trial of M.K.O. Abiola for declaring himself winner of the 1993
presidential election. World leaders, individuals and the Commonwealth of Nations had
mounted an international campaign for clemency for the Ogoni activists (Omotoso,
2004:4) but without reprieve by Abacha. The outcome of this behavioural outlook against
the international community was the unparalleled global outrage on Nigeria and the
consequent isolation of the country in the global system notably by the Commonwealth,
European Union (EU) and the United states. These

1.3 Objectives of the study

The general objective of this study is to the press under president Olusegun obansanjo first
term as president of Nigeria (1999-2003)

President Olusegun Obasanjo, 1999-2003. The specific objectives of this study are to:

(i) Highlight Nigeria’s press under president Obansajo first term from 1999-2003.
(ii) Examine the impact of Obasanjo’s Shuttle Diplomacy in re-building Nigeria’s image as a
regional power in Nigeria.
(iii) Assess the extent to which President Obasanjo was able to address the domestic challenges
prevalent in the previous military regimes.
(iv) Assess the volume of press abilities attracted into Nigeria by the

Obasanjo’s regime (1999-2003).

1.4 Research questions

President Olusegun Obasanjo, 1999-2003. The specific objectives of this study are to:

(i) What is the Nigeria’s press under president Obansajo first term from 1999-2003.

(ii) What is the impact of Obasanjo’s Shuttle Diplomacy in re-building Nigeria’s image as a
regional power in Nigeria.
(iii) How to access the extent to which President Obasanjo was able to address the domestic
challenges prevalent in the previous military regimes.
(iv) What is the volume of press abilities attracted into Nigeria by the Obasanjo’s regime
(1999-2003).

1.5 Justification of the study

This study is justified both on theoretical and practical fronts. Theoretically, the study
complements the press under the president Olusegun obansajo’s tenure other works done
by scholars on Nigeria’s foreign policy in general and economic diplomacy in particular;
especially those that seek to uncover the relationship between economic diplomacy and the
management of international affairs in developing states. Again, the dexterity and deftness
with which President Obasanjo laundered Nigeria’s scruffy image, brought the nation back
from the brink of pariah state, secured debt reliefs from creditor institutions and eventually
attracted high volumes of foreign direct investment (FDI), etc, deserve this noble quest for
insights into what transpired during that administration.
1.6 Significance of the study

Thus, it becomes clear that not much research has been done on the Obasanjo’s
administration focusing on his influence in laundering Nigeria’s traumatized image,
addressing the local issues prevalent in the country before his emergence and his use of
shuttle diplomacy in re-branding Nigeria and thereby; attracting the measure of foreign
direct investments he brought to the economy. This is certainly, one of the gaps this study
has filled. This study therefore becomes significant in making valuable contributions to the
body of knowledge as it examines the performance, achievements and pitfalls of the
Obasanjo’s administration and the refurbishment of Nigeria’s image. Consequently, this
study provides some measure of academic support to the bold attempt made by the
democratic government during the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo to
rebuild the shattered image of Nigeria in the comity of nations by addressing the issues of
corruption, debt, foreign direct investment and political tensions in the country.
1.7 Scope of the study
This study centers on Nigeria’s press under the administration of President
Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2003. That was the interlude when the military handed
power over to the civilians having been at the helm of political affairs for over fifteen (4)
years. It looks at the influence of personality on the management of external policy.

1.8 Limitations of the study

This study, even from its inception can be said to be faced imminently with various
challenges and constraints. For instance, factors bordering on economic, social and health
concerns posed as major impediments to the researcher. Personal security issues seriously
influenced the researcher’s movement. In addition, this researcher’s efforts to have a
personal interview with Chief Obasanjo on his perspectives and challenges of press under
his tenure proved abortive. Several appointments were cancelled at the very last minutes
by his aides and assistants who claimed that the former Head of State was either busy and
could no longer entertain visitors or that he had travelled out of town for important national
assignment. But we had to rely on his official statements, speeches, conducts, actions and
inactions toward external relations as captured in newspapers, diplomatic correspondences
and official gazettes.
 REFERENCE

- "1999 Nigerian presidential election." Wikipedia, 2023-03-05, (link unavailable)

- "Olusegun Obasanjo." Britannica, (link unavailable)

- "The Legacy of Nigeria's 1999 Transition to Democracy." Council on Foreign

Relations, 2019-10-04, (link unavailable)

- "Obasanjo: from a Nigerian village to the pinnacle of power on the continent." ISS

Africa, 2023-07-16, (link unavailable)

- "A man of controversy." Cambridge University Press, 2013-04-05, (link unavailable)

- "Excerpts of President Obasanjo's speech." BBC News, 1999-05-29, (link

unavailable)
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Although there are many themes that can be considered, this work will concentrate on
these themes; Policy, African policy, Nigerian Policy and peacekeeping. This is to provide more
insight into the connection between Nigeria’s Policy and its African policy. The available
literatures on these themes are numerous but focus will be on a few of them.
2.1 POLICY
Policy has been viewed from many perspectives by numerous scholars and there is no
agreement on its definition. The difference in what each scholar says Policy is could be said to
result from their background. In spite of this, some have tried to define Policy in a way that
would be acceptable to many. The concept of Policy is as old as the perception of state’s mutual
interaction since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 where States were known as “sovereign
actors”, and required to interact mutually for collective peace.
Consequently, some scholars have viewed Policy from the angle of how the domestic
environment, determines foreign policies to be made. These foreign policies, therefore determine
the relationship a state has with other states. Northedge (1968:15) describes Policy as interplay
between the outside and inside.
Holsti (cited in Asogwa, 2009:2) defines Policy as actions of a state towards the external
environment and the domestic conditions under which these actions are formulated. These Policy
decisions are determined by current domestic situations in a state. Domestic situations like the
type of political leadership, political system and history of a state determine the final Policy
decision of a state. Holsti’s definition of Policy seems to be silent on the actions of the external
environment towards the internal environment.
 A missing gap is that the above definition does not show how a country can achieve its
Policy. Tyoden (1989:59) in line with this thought sees Policy as measures consciously put in
place by the government of a state to achieve certain objectives and goals in the international
arena.
It is important to note that these perspectives are silent on non-state actors and
other sources of influence that may lead to Policy decisions of a state. However,
recent literature on Policy has taken note of other actors that influence foreign
policies of states.
According to Mongatheu (1978), the Policy objective of a state should be interpreted in
terms of its national interest. In addition, these goals lead to states forming policies that will
ensure the actualization of their interests in the international arena. Due to this, Policy has been
said to be a set of strategic tactics placed to achieve a state’s defined objective.
Policy contains two important components; national objectives which are determined by
national interests of the state and the means of achieving them (Ezirim, 2011). Pham (2007:126-
136) was of the opinion that how a state is able to reconcile its Policy objectives with the means
to achieve them involves a lot of statecraft. Since national interest is of importance in Policy
formulation, the highest decision making body in government is in charge of Policy formulation
(Olumide, 2006: 201-212).
Thus, Frankel (1978:26) sees Policy as:

a range of actions, as well as a set of principles influencing these

actions, taken with reference to external situations and factors... the
summation of thoughts, actions and principles on external affairs
taken by decision-makers with the intention of achieving long-range
goals and short-term objectives.

His explanation views Policy as goals and objectives that are related to national
interest. Thus, for Beard (1934) foreign policies are not built on abstract things, but
on practical concepts of national interest that can be measured like prosperity and
national security.

In agreement, Olusanya and Akindele (cited in Bar, 2009:13) assert that the Policy of a
state is driven by the need to promote the national interest of a state in its interaction with the
outside world and international arena.
 Furthermore, Akinboye (cited in Ajejunmobi, 2011:309) is of the view that Policy is an
ever changing process involving the domestic and external environment. He continued that it is
the general objective that guides the way states relate with one another in the international arena.
From the above, Policy has to do with national goals and objectives as well as the strategies for
attaining them. However, states have different means of achieving their Policy goals and
objectives.
On the other hand, Akindele (2003) sees Policy as a collection of specific strategic
policies chosen from a variety of options and implemented over a period of time in order to
achieve specified goals and objectives that would lead to the attainment or protection of prepared
values. He seems to suggest that the leader of a state is responsible for the Policy decisions of a
state because they choose from a variety of alternatives available to them and what they choose
is known as the state’s Policy. Giving support to Akindele’s views, Ofoegbu (1980:45) defines
Policy as:

a set of connected ideas and thoughts, which often is the product of

mental reflective activities and processes which embodies judgment,
choices, decision, evaluation, systematic insight, appreciation of
objectives realities revolving round the milieu and seeking solutions.

This definition further suggests the presence of a leader of department responsible

for Policy formulation in a state.
The above cited scholars are in agreement that Policy decisions of a state are highly
influenced by the domestic structures or factors that exist within the state and these domestic
realities may be political or historical and they determine the relationship of the state with the
outside world. These Policy decisions are therefore formulated to promote and protect the
national interest of the state. Scholars aligned to this view see the state as the only actor in the
international arena. It is noticeable that other non-state actors that also influence or make Policy
decisions are not mentioned.
Policy from their stance is seen from the perspective of the nation state. The
perspectives of these scholars are state centric and realism oriented in the sense that the state is
seen as the only rational and unitary actor participating in Policy thereby ruling out other
important actors such as civil society (Hill,2003:6).
 Although nation states are important in the international arena, they are not the only
actors. The international system consists of nation-states, international organizations, and private
actors (Muhittin, 2003:1).
These other non-state actors are able to influence Policy decisions and they lobby
in domestic and international settings and mobilize their home or host states and
national and shape global public opinion. Non-state actors are active in more than
one state; therefore, they can exploit states against each other. By hiring former
bureaucrats and political leaders, non-state actors use personal connections of their
employees. Miyoshi (1993:744) noted that in recent times, non-state actors have
begun to substitute nation- states in many areas.
Fawole (2003) rightly observed that other non-state actors are involved in Policy
considerations apart from the state. These include the international environment, domestic
factors (such as the economy and the political configuration operational in a state at that point in
time), and the leadership factor. Fawole’s analysis seems to be in line with Ezirim (2011) who
viewed Policy as an activity whereby a state deals with other states, non-governmental
organizations, international organizations, and certain individuals.
In more inclusive but not encompassing terms, Du Plessis maintains that Policy refers to:
[T]hose actions which, expressed in the form of explicitly stated
directives, and performed by government representatives acting on
behalf of their sovereign communities are manifestly directed towards
objectives, conditions and actors – both governmental and non-
governmental – which ... lie beyond their sphere of territorial
legitimacy Du Plessis (2002:112).

These definitions that include the place of non-state actors are known as liberal
pluralist. (Hill,2003:7).

From the review above, it can be seen that the term Policy has been given different
definitions. However, while some have argued that Policy is exclusively between
states, current events have shown that non state actors also participate in the Policy
process and influence the Policy decisions of states. Therefore, Policy can be said
to be the set of actions a state takes in order to achieve stated objectives in the
international arena.
 2.2. NATIONAL INTEREST

The concept of national interest is important to Policy because it often determines the
goals and objectives of a country’s Policy. National interest is seen as set of goals, a nation or
country strives for in the world, as regards to its domestic needs and priorities States formulate
foreign polices with the aim of preserving the state and for the prosperity of the state.
According to Akinboye (1999) cited in Anifowose and Enemou (1999:366), national
interest serves as an analytical tool and as an instrument for political action. As an analytical
tool, it serves as a conceptual framework that guides the objective to be considered in intended
Policy. While as a tool of political action, it serves as a weapon that powers a state’s Policy
option and action in the international system.
Likewise, Morgenthau (1973) was of the opinion that the objective of a
Policy must be interpreted in terms of national interest. Morgenthau further stated
that no country or nation should boast of having a true Policy without having
national interest as a guide. Both scholars agree that national interest guides the
formulation of Policy.
Brown (op.cit) in Luard (1992) posits that national interest predominates the actualization
of Policy objectives by any civilized state in international relations with others. He further stated
that national interest has an answer to why states behave the way they behave.
Rosati, (2006) views national interests as the interests of the political or ruling class
because they may have been constitutionally or traditionally empowered by their leadership
position to decide for the rest having been elected by the people or by forceful submission in the
case of military dictatorship.
In agreement, Henderson (2005) sees national interest as the collective aspiration of a
state on a world-wide scale. This denotes the official declaration that a nation’s political
leadership has made about what its desires in international politics are. What is termed national
interest is usually the desire of a few people in the society who have been elected to hold power.
Abegunrin (2003) is of the opinion that the generally acceptable view of Nigeria`s
national interest is the manifestation of the core values, objectives, and philosophy underlying
the actions of the leaders. In Nigeria, whereas it may be true that certain core values are pursued
within the context of national interest, the perceptions of leaders always differ.
 According to Oshuntokun (1987:1), Nigeria’s national interests are internal cohesion,
national unity, the creation of a state where there is freedom of speech, political association,
religion and equality before the law. Nigeria’s relations with other countries advance its national
interest. Aluko (1981) defines Nigeria’s national interest as consisting of six important elements.

1. Self-preservation of the country.

2. Defense and maintenance of the Country’s independence.

3. Economic and social well being of the people.

4. Defense, preservation and promotion of democratic values.

5. Enhancement of the country’s standing and status in the world capitals in Africa,
and

6. Promotion of world peace.

Nigeria’s national interest has mostly had Africa as its major priority. This concept of
placing Africa as the center piece of Policy of Nigeria has emerged as the most consistent theme
that runs through the country’s Policy in all regimes.
The term national interest has been said to have no generally agreed upon definition
because scholars have argued on if any anything can be called “national” in the face of many
personal, class, group, sectional, and public interests in a state. Despite the various definitions of
national interest, it can be said to be the machinery states use to interact with one another at a
particular point in time.
As States have developed, so has the definition of national interest. While the notion of
States as the sole actor independent of other still holds, it is important to note that the state is
dependent on global politics. States pursue their national interest through diplomacy,
propaganda, economic sanctions/embargo and the use of military instrument among others.

2.3 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NIGERIA’S POLICY

 The principles of Nigeria’s Policy came about as a result of Nigeria’s need to uphold its
sovereignty. The foundation of Nigeria’s Policy can be traced to Sir Tafawa Balewa who upon
assumption of office pronounced the fundamental principles are geared towards protecting and
advancing Nigeria’s national interest. The following are the core principles of Nigeria’s Policy:

(1) Non alignment with any of the then existing ideological and military power
blocs, especially the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw
Pact.
(2) Respect for the legal equality, political independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of all states.
(3) Respect for the doctrine of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other
states.
(4) Seeking membership of both continental and global multilateral organization
based on their function of importance to Nigeria.
(5) The recognition of Africa as the centerpiece of Nigeria’s external relations
(Fawole,2003:42).
According to the 1999 Nigerian constitution, the essential ingredients of Nigeria’s Policy
include the following:
 promotion and protection of the national interest;
 promotion of African integration and support for African unity;
 promotion of international co-operation for the consolidation of universal peace and
mutual respect among all nations and elimination of discrimination in all its
manifestations.
 respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as the seeking of settlement
of international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and
adjudication;
 and promotion of a just world economic order.
In order to have a better understanding of these elements of Nigeria’s Policy, it is
important to provide an explanation of the principles.

(1) Commitment To The Principle Of Non- Alignment.

 This principle came about as a result of the bipolarity of world politics as at the time
Nigeria gained independence in 1960. Fawole (2003:42) noted the world then was divided into
two antagonistic ideologies of capitalism, as supported by the United States (US) and
communism which was championed by the former Soviet Union (USSR). Keeping in mind the
situation, and the desire to protect its independence, Nigeria chose to be non-partisan in the play
of power between the Western and Eastern blocs. Some scholars have however argued that the
principle was more in theory than practice.
Fawole (2003:43) argued “Even with the government of Sir Balewa, the originator of the
idea did little to respect it” Balewa he added was “pro-British and pro-Western” He cited
Nigeria’s signing of a bilateral Defense Pact with Britain in 1960, allowed Britain establish a
military base in Nigeria. The Defence Pact was abrogated in 1962 due to pressure from the
parliamentary opposition and disapproval of Nigerians Fawole (2003:43).

(2) Respect For The Territorial Integrity And Political Independence Of Nation-
States.
This principle came about by the idea that Nigeria’s ability to defend its own sovereignty
is strengthened when states respect each other’s territorial integrity. Respect for territorial
integrity is important in Africa where boundaries have created a lot of dispute. Thus, Balewa
stated:
boundaries should be respected and, in the interest of peace, must remain the
recognized boundaries until such time as the people concerned decide of their
free will to merge into one larger unit. We shall discourage any attempts to
influence such communities by force…since such interference could only
result in unrest and…harm to the future of this great continent (Balewa,
1964:56).

Nigeria’s desire to assure its neighboring states such as Benin, Chad, Niger, Cameroon
and other states in the continent that Nigeria would not impose its authority on any of its African
neighbors, led to the adoption of the principle. According to Fawole (2003:44) Nigeria believed
that abiding by the dictates of international law and civilized rules of behavior is important to the
security of newly independent and weak states. Balwea stated:
we shall never impose ourselves upon any other country and shall treat every
African territory, big or small, as our equal because we honestly feel that it is
 only on that basis that peace can be maintained in our continent (Balewa,1960
cited in Fawole,2003:42).

Scholars such as Idang (1973) Aluko (1977 & 1980 and Fawole (2003) have interpreted
this principle as the expression of Nigeria’s willingness and readiness to conduct its external
affairs with other states according to civilized rules of interaction.

(3) Non-Interference In The Internal Affairs Of Other States.

The principle of non-interference in simple terms means that Nigeria will not
interfere in the affairs of other states. However, Nigeria has sometimes had course
to interfere in the affairs of African states in order to protect Nigeria’s national
interest.
Nigeria legitimately intervenes in the domestic issues of African states in order to
ensure peace and unity among its neighbors. When this happens, Crocker (2007);
justifies this intervention as Responsibility towards Protect (R2P).
Nigeria has not unduly interfered in the affairs of African states, except in critical
cases. This has led Nigeria to play active roles in peacekeeping missions in Congo
1960, and lend support for the liberation of South Africa among others.

(4)Promotion of African Unity Through Functional Cooperation.

The principle of promotion of African unity can be said to originate from the
nationalist and pan Africanist ideological orientation of Nigeria’s Policy
(Fawole:2012). Nigeria’s founding fathers believed Nigeria was to lead Africa.
Thus, Nigeria’s commitment to unity in Africa has grown to be the core of
Nigeria’s Policy. Balewa noted that African states had to understand each other
before a political union can be formed (Balewa,1964:159). This led to the
formation of OAU in 1963.
Furthermore, Nigeria played an important role in the formation of Economic
Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) in 1965, showing Nigeria was
committed to continental unity. Nigeria also stood behind Angola, Namibia and
Zimbabwe in their liberation struggles (Folarin:2012).
.
 (5)The Recognition of Africa as The Centerpiece of Nigeria’s External Relations
Since the first republic, Nigeria’s Policy had been largely Afro-centric in posture.
In an official statement just before independence, on August 20, 1960, Prime
Minister Tafawa Balewa at the Federal House of Assembly stated that Nigeria was,
“adopting clear and practical policies with regard to Africa; it will be our aim to
assist any country to find solution to its problem.” This position could be
appreciated when we consider the fact that successive regimes in Nigeria accorded
significant attention to Africa as the centre-piece of Nigerian Policy.
Nigeria’s African center piece policy can be seen in the country’s peacekeeping
engagements, and contributions towards the establishment and sustaining of
various continental and regional organizations such as the Organization of African
Unity (OAU) in 1963, and the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) in 1965. The African center piece policy still remains a cardinal
principle of Nigeria’s Policy.

2.4 NIGERIA’S AFRICAN POLICY

African policy refers to how Nigeria relates to Africa. It shows how Nigeria responds to
issues concerning the African continent, West African States and international organizations in
Africa. Nigeria’s African policy started since independence in 1960 and still remains till today.
The adoption of the African Center Piece Policy can be traced to three major factors
which are: First Nigeria’s large population, which rose from about 40 million at independence, to
the current level of 188.2 million (World Bank, 2015) this makes Nigeria Africa’s largest
country. Second, Nigeria’s large size geographical landmass of 923,768 square kilometers with
Benin Republic at the West, Niger and Chad in the North, while Cameroon is at the South
(Nweke,2010:10). Third, Nigeria is the economic power house of West Africa, being the twelfth
largest producer of oil in the world and sixth largest exporter of oil (Gambari, 2008:60).Nigeria’s
wealth has played a big role in the pursuing of the African center piece policy especially during
the golden era of the 1970’s and 1980’s .
The belief that Nigeria was meant to be Africa’s leader has been held since independence
and is clearly seen in the numerous leadership roles the country has taken in Africa. This roles
include the liberation of the continent from imperialism, fighting apartheid and racism in
Southern Africa and in the Diaspora, uniting Africans to make their voice loud enough in global
politics and using the enormous resources of the country to assist needy African states (Ojiako,
1981, Saliu, 1999).
Nigeria has been continuously committed to Africa and this commitment has earned the
country a respectable place in global politics. Therefore, Nigeria has given itself the
responsibility of looking after the welfare of Africans wherever they may be.
Saliu (1999) states that it is can be argued that the well-being of the African continent is
tied to Nigeria. This is justified by Nigeria’s quick response to the Congo crisis in 1960-61, a
few months after independence; its intervention in Chad, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Gambia,
Uganda, and Tanganyika.
Nigeria also supported revolutionary struggles for independence and gave financial
assistance to African states. He further noted that going by Nigeria’s pedigree in African politics;
much is yet expected of the country today by African states.
Works that have examined Nigeria’s African policy include Okon (1998), and Shaw
(1987).The studies show that the spirit of Africa in Nigerian Policy lead to the formation of
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in 1975.
Another important issue is the financial, material and economic assistance
Nigeria has given to African countries (Akinbobola, 2000; Akindele, 1998; and
Olusanya, 1989).They were of the view that Nigeria supports African countries in
terms of economic diplomacy with Nigeria giving loans, grants and donations to
African states. (Folarin,2012).
Nigeria’s African policy can also be understood against the background of
the regional security problems in the continent (Folarin,2012). Nigeria considers
Africa’s security as important to its Policy pursuits. According to Adeniji (2000),
Nigeria has also contributed to ensuring peace and security in Africa by supporting
liberation movements in Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia and resolving of regional
 conflicts and disputes.
While the African policy has been encouraged, some scholars are of the view that the
African policy has some problems. Shaw (1987) for instance argues that Nigeria gives priority to
wrong issues. He stated that the state of the country’s economy and corruption issues has
become a source of weakness than strength which has made Nigeria not move beyond being “a
potential super-state”.
Fasehun & Shaw (1980) noted that while Nigeria was a great country, the country’s
African policy may not be sustainable if domestic issues such as corruption, political instability,
ethnic and religious crisis were not checked. Other problems identified by other scholars include
poor governance and mismanagement of aid (Gray and McPherson, 2001; McAuslan, 1996).
In addition, Nigeria’s African policy seems to focus more on Africa than its national
interest. According to Akindele (1998), the ultimate goal of Policy should be to protect and
promote the national interest of the country. It is therefore argued that whether on the African or
global level, Nigeria’s African policy should fulfill a national objective of national economic
development (Akindele, 1998; Akpotor & Nwolise, 1999).
Due to changes in the African continent, some studies have discussed the new roles and
demands that Nigeria has to meet up to with in the pursuit of its African policy These demands
include regional security (Badmus & Ogunmola, 2003; IPA, 2003), combating increasing
poverty, diseases and underdevelopment (Akinbobola, 2000; Nweke, 2000), growing
indebtedness to the west (Saliu, 1999, Olusanya, 1989), and democratization (Asobie, 2002).
Although Nigeria’s African center piece policy has been around since
independence, however, there are arguments about its relevance. One area in which
Nigeria has been active in is the area of peace keeping.

2.5 PEACEKEEPING
Peacekeeping came about by the need to help countries torn by conflict achieve lasting
peace. The United Nations peace keeping operations evolved essentially as a holding action. The
term peacekeeping was first used by Dag Hammarskjold, the United Nations Secretary General
(1953-1961), he was the prime mover of United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) which was
sent to interpose between Egypt and Israel in the 1956 Suez Canal conflict.
 However, as conflict increased in the international system, the United Nations (UN)
became unable to reach the demands of conflicting states. Thus, international organizations such
as ECOWAS also embarked on peace-keeping missions. The International Peace Academy gives
a broader definition of what peace-keeping is:
The prevention, containment, moderation and termination of
hostilities, through the medium of a peaceful third party intervention,
organized and directed internationally, using multinational forces of
soldiers and civilians to restore and maintain order.

However, a third party intervention might not necessarily be peaceful as was seen in the
case of ECOMOG forces in Liberia. When ECOMOG forces landed in Liberia in 1990 to keep
the peace Charles Taylor opened fire on them, and both sides were engulfed in serious fighting
for several weeks. Thus, Ekoko provides a more comprehensive definition of peacekeeping:
the use of multinational military, civil police and in some cases, civilian
personnel, for the prevention, containment, and termination of crisis which the
United Nations, or any other international organization feels might threaten
international peace and security (cited in Nwolise, 2004:16)

Despite these definitions, peace-keeping is still a voluntary action that is based on

consent and co-operation as defined by the UN. It also involves the use of military personnel,
and peace-keepers to achieve stated objectives not by force of arms but by peaceful persuasion in
order to distinguish peacekeeping from peace-enforcement.
Peacekeeping or “preventive diplomacy” according to Dag
Hammarskjold’s categorization thus represents a different formula of the UN’s role
in maintaining peace and security. The objectives of peace-keeping essentially are
the control of conflict; diffusion of tension; and provision of a stabilized and
conducive atmosphere for conflicting parties to talk of peace, and resolve the
conflict.
Peacekeeping operations, like those embarked on by the UN and ECOWAS,
through the ECOMOG forces in Liberia and Sierra-Leone involve the dispatch of
military or civilian officials to conflict areas to intervene between warring parties,
to monitor a ceasefire and to ensure compliance with the ceasefire modalities.
Peacekeeping is an operation involving military personnel but without enforcement
powers established by the UN to help maintain or restore peace in areas of conflict. Such
operations could be either observer missions or peacekeeping missions. They are normally
established by the Security Council, and they are directed by the Secretary General.
They must have the consent of the host governments and other parties directly involved.
The military personnel required are provided by Member States on a voluntary basis
(Department of Public Information, 1985:3).
In similar vein, Isiaq (2012) opined that traditional peacekeeping is when two parties in
a conflict agree to intervention of UN troops to uphold a ceasefire. During this period a small
number of UN army troops which are contributed by member states of the UN defend their
mandate. The UN army troops lightly armed are introduced and positioned between the warring
parties and they are a symbol of peace.
The Security Council is head of the operations through the secretary general of the UN
and the military commander authorized under chapter 6 of the charter. The troops are to be
impartial and they derive their legitimacy from representing the international community.
Examples of traditional peacekeeping operations includes that of Cyprus, which have separated
the Greek and Turkish communities in 1964, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, disputed by
India and Pakistan (1949) and in the Golan Heights, between Israel and Syria (Isiaq, 2012:4).
Often referred to as ‘Blue Berets’ the military units in peacekeeping operation remain
members of their own national armies with their own command and control, but serve under a
UN- appointed local commander.
For a peacekeeping operation to succeed, it needs to secure not only the co-operation of
the conflicting parties, but also of the international community, including regional and non-
governmental organizations, donors, and members-states (Isiaq, 2012:5).
In its traditional sense, peacekeeping means conflict containment. Activities carried out
under this arrangements include the negotiation of ceasefires verification of truces including
troops withdrawals and/or disengagement, interposition of barriers between hostile parties,
investigation and mediation of violations and creation of buffer monitoring zones (Charles,
2005:253).
In the view of Kirgis (cited in Fred Agwu, 2007:23), peacekeeping is a peaceful third
party intervention which operates with a set of guiding principles that include the consent of the
parties to the conflict, impartiality and the non-use of force except in self-defense. The
conception was strongly affirmed by the Brahimi Report in its submission that the consent of the
parties, impartiality and use of force only in self-defense should remain the bedrock principles of
peacekeeping (Ibid).
The end of cold-war in 1945 brought a lot of changes in the number of peacekeeping
operations embarked upon by the United Nation. The increase in the number of peacekeeping
operations was accompanied by a change in the function associated with traditional operations.
At the same time, the composition of post-cold war peacekeeping operations became more
diverse and complex: peacekeepers were drawn from a wider variety of occupation (military,
civilian, police and diplomatic), nations and cultures (Wibke et al, 2004:3).
In this instance, contemporary peacekeeping can now be appropriately characterized as
multilateral, multidimensional, multinational and multicultural (Isiaq, 2012). Nigeria has
dedicated a lot of resources to maintaining peace in Africa. The following section looks into
Nigeria’s peacekeeping operations.

2.6 NIGERIA IN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

Nigeria has been very active in conflict resolution and peacekeeping operations in Africa
and all over the world. Nigeria’s involvement in peacekeeping can be traced to her Policy
objectives. It can also be said that Nigeria’s commitment to peacekeeping is in line with the
notion of the four concentric circles of national interest.
At the core of these circles lies a concern with Nigeria’s own security, which is based on
the cultivation of good neighborly relations especially with our immediate neighbours: Benin,
Cameroon, Chad and Niger. This is in recognition that Nigeria’s security is tied to the security of
West Africa, and it is for this reason that the second circle expands to include the whole West
African region.
Africa then constitutes the third circle, and just like in the previous two circles, the major
focus is the promotion of peace, economic integration, development, and the fight against all
forms of colonial domination. The fourth and final circle focuses on Nigeria’s relations with
bodies and countries outside of Africa (Muhammad, 2005).
Since joining the United Nation in 1960, Nigeria has committed itself to peacekeeping
and peacemaking. Nigeria has led numerous international peacekeeping missions globally. The
country has more than 6,800 men keeping peace outside its borders in places such as Bosnia
Herzegovina, Iraq, Kuwait, Western Sahara, Liberia, Angola, Rwanda. Nigeria troops have also,
served in Somalia, Mozambique and Cambodia, the Congo, Chad Lebanon, India Pakistan.
The key thing in global peacekeeping is the men and women risking their lives in the
interest of peace. Nigeria has more of those people than any other country in the world (the
Guardian, May 31, 2009). It is Nigeria’s belief that socio – economic development and
integration in Africa can only be attained under an atmosphere of peace and stability (Isiaq,
2012).
Peacekeeping operation has become an important mechanism of the United Nations and
Nigeria was privileged to participate in the first ever peacekeeping operation on the African soil.
Under the supervision of the United Nations in 1960s, Nigerian officers were drafted to the
former Congo to maintain stability. Nigeria was among the very few countries of the world that
took active part in major peacekeeping operations around the globe. The country was rated
among the best well behave and discipline contingent (UN, 2010).
The reason for Nigeria’s participation in peacekeeping in Africa is that Africa’s problem
could eventually become Nigeria’s problem as some of these African countries share boundaries
with Nigeria. For instance, Ghanaians once immigrated to Nigeria due to the crisis in Ghana in
1983. Also, the crisis in Liberia eventually led to Charles Taylor’s Asylum in Nigeria in
2006/2007 which tasked the purse of Nigerian federal government. All these external problems
have implications on the stability of Nigeria. Therefore, Nigeria cannot ignore African problems
rather she must maintain the principle of Afrocentrism.
This is so because; one out of every five Africans is a Nigerian. Strategically, therefore,
Nigeria has to be involved in crisis management in Africa (Abiola and Saliu 1998:63 - 78).This
is for security purposes.
El-Rufai (cited in Hamman and Omojuwa (2013) acknowledged that Nigeria has every
reason to be proud of her peacekeeping missions. Nigeria’s involvement in peacekeeping
operations has not been limited to Africa alone but other parts of the world. Some of the
peacekeeping operations in which Nigeria has participated in include sending a battalion to
Congo (UNOC) 1960-1964; Military observers to new Guinea (UNSF) 1962-1963; to Tanzania
by bilateral agreement 1964; Military observers during the India-Pakistan conflict (UNIPOM)
1965-1966; battalion and staff officers to Lebanon (UNIFIL), 1978-1983; battalion and staff
officers to Chad (Harmony I, via bilateral agreement) 1981-1982; brigade to Chad (Harmony II,
under the auspices of OAU) 1982-1983; military observers during Iran-Iraq conflict (UNIMOG)
1988-1991; division to Liberia (ECOMOG) 1990 to date; military observers for Iraq-Kuwait
(UNIKOM) 1991, and to Angola (UNAVEMII) 1991-1992; military observers to Namibia
(UNTAG) 1989-1990; to western Sahara (MINURSO) 1991; and to Cambodia (UNTAC) 1992-
1993.
The country also contributed a battalion and staff officers to Somalia (UNOSOM) 1992-
1994; battalion and staff officers to the former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR) 1992; military
observers to Mozambique (ONUMOZ) 1992; a battalion to Rwanda; (UNAMIR) 1993; military
observers Aouzo strip (UNASOG) 1994; and to Israel (UNTSO) 1995; Liberia (ECOMOG)
1987; Sierra Leone (ECOMOG) 1996; Darfur (UNAMID) 2003’etc.
El-Rufai (cited in Hamman and Omojuwa, 2013) maintains that Nigeria is the
biggest African contributor of military personnel and strong financial base to the
peacekeeping operations of the world.
Nigeria’s participation in international peace-keeping has been a consistent theme in the
conduct of her Policy since the attainment of independence (Isiaq, 2012). In view of this, Saliu
(1998:110), stated: “while it is true that the country had demonstrated her peace-keeping role in
the 1970s and 1980s through the UN and OAU, the decade of the 1990s has witnessed a
significant expansion in the circumference of Nigeria’s participation in peace-keeping
operations”.
Nigerian soldiers have received commendations and applaud for exhibiting a high sense
of military professionalism, whenever they are called to serve (Fawole, 2000). Nigeria’s efforts
towards ensuring peace in Africa can be said to be tailored along the country’s good
neighborliness policy.

2.7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The concentric circle theory was first used by sociologists to explain social structure, its
evolution and how it would expand to other aspects of the social economic environment.
 Concentric circles are circles that share the same center point, an inner circle, outer circle a
tighter circle and a loser circle.
The Concentric Circle Theory is a security theory that explains the way states behave.
The theory states that nation states make decisions in order to protect their strategic national
interest. The theory divides the interests of nation states into primary, secondary and tertiary
levels. The theory states that a country makes decisions based on their national interest with the
important ones being the closest and the others afar of.
The theory states that if the primary level is unstable, a state cannot do well. The
Concentric Circle Theory has three basic components:

(a) A military strategic dimension

(b) An economic dimension
(c) A political dimension
The Concentric circle theory has been applied in Policy analysis by scholars and some
governments in Policy making. The application of the Concentric circle theory to Policy in
Nigeria Policy was the idea of Professor Ibrahim Gambari. Professor Ibrahim Gambari, (1989)
he asserts:
that a country’s Policy revolves around its national interest and Nigeria is not
an exception to this. While Africa remains the center piece of our Policy, we
cannot operate within a series of concentric circles which now effectively
guides our behavior on the African and the world scene. The innermost of the
circles of national interest involves Nigeria’s security-territorial integrity and
political independence and that of the neighbours of Nigeria.

The theory of Nigeria’s Policy has been explained by Nigerian diplomats and scholars in
terms of four concentric circles of national interest. The innermost circle represents Nigeria’s
security, independence and prosperity and is centered on its immediate neighbors; Benin,
Cameroon, Chad and Niger. The second circle revolves around Nigeria and her West African
neighbors; the third circle focuses on continental African issues of peace, development and
democratization and the fourth circle focuses on Nigeria relations with organizations institutions
and states outside Africa (Gambari, 1989).
 The Concentric Circles Theory, therefore, locates Nigeria’s strategic interest in the inner
core which emphasizes Nigeria’s strategic defense economic and diplomatic interest. In support
of the concentric circle theory, Saliu (2011) stated that:
There has been an increased interest in adopting the concentric circles
in analyzing Nigerian Policy since the time of Ibrahim Gambari as
External Affairs Minister of Nigeria between 1984 and 1985. He has
often argued that more will be gained if scholars and policy-makers
develop the layered approach to the study of Nigerian Policy. By this,
it means that Nigeria’s interests in global affairs should be located in
the physical Nigeria and her immediate neighbors in West Africa,
larger Africa, then the rest of the world and international
organizations. This, Ibrahim Gambari and others who believe in the
thesis of concentric circles argue, is the best way for Nigeria to go in
protecting her interests.

The concentric circle theory reinforces the centrality of Africa in Nigeria’s Policy
(Akpotor and Nwolise, 1999).The limitation of this theory is that it neglects
economic diplomacy and the welfare of Nigerian citizens. Nigeria cannot continue
to be Africa’s big brother while her citizens continue to face poverty, insecurity and
economic instability. .Notwithstanding, the concentric circle theory was considered
more suitable to this research work as it was able to bring Nigeria’s African policy
under President Olusegun Obasanjo to bear. The next chapter looks into the
background of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s African policy.
REFERENCE

"Obasanjo: from a Nigerian village to the pinnacle of power on the continent." ISS

Africa, 2023-07-16.

- "An interview with Olusegun Obasanjo: Up close and a little too personal." The

Guardian, 2017-09-28.

- "Olusegun Obasanjo." Encyclopedia Britannica.

- "Olusegun Obasanjo: A Life of Service." Nigeria News Agency.

- "Obasanjo's legacy: A mixed bag." Premium Times, 2019-05-29.

- "Olusegun Obasanjo: A Review of His Life and Presidency." Nigerian Journal of

International Affairs, 2018-01-01.

- "Obasanjo: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." This Day, 2020-02-09.

- "The Obasanjo Presidency: A Critical Assessment." Journal of African Studies and

Development, 2017-03-01.
 CHAPTER THREE

BACKGROUND TO PRESIDENT OLUSEGUN OBASANJO’S AFRICAN

POLICY.

3.1 How President Olusegun Obasanjo Became President.

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was born in Owu, Ogun State, South-Western Nigeria on
March 5, 1937. He attended Baptist High School Abeokuta and started his professional life in the
military where he enlisted in 1958 and rose to the rank of a General. He was very active in the
Nigerian civil war (1967-1970) during which he commanded the federal troops that seized
Owerri and brought the war to an end when the Biafran secessionists voluntarily surrendered to
the federal troops. He also held several positions in the military high command (Fawole, 2000).
 Chief Obasanjo was second in command to the Nigerian Head of State, General Murtala
Mohammed, as Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters. This was the basis upon which he
succeeded the latter as Head of State. As Head of State, General Obasanjo kept the chain of
command established by his predecessor, continued with the reform programs that were meant to
improve the quality of public service, and above all, kept the promise to return Nigeria to civilian

st
rule in 1979, which he did on 1 October 1979.

He became one of the military rulers in Africa who voluntarily transferred power to
civilian democracy. In retirement, he was a strong advocate of civil rule in the developing world
and a strong critic of the incursion of the military into politics in Africa. His harsh criticisms of
African military institutions for destroying democratic structure led to his arrest, trial and
imprisonment for allegedly participating in a coup d’état by General Abacha regime (Kolawole,
2005).
Before President Olusegun Obasanjo became the civilian President, Nigeria had been
under military rule for fifteen years. During this period, 1993-1998, Nigeria’s external image was
in disarray following the annulment of the June 12 elections in 1993, which led to the emergence
of the Interim National Government (ING) in 1993. However, a coup was staged in 1993 and
brought General Sani Abacha into power.

During the regime of General Sani Abacha, Nigeria was an outcast in the international
arena due to high level of human rights violation and poor domestic policies. Thus, Nigeria
became isolated in the international system. General Sani Abacha’s sudden death in June, 1998
led to General Abubakar Abdulsalami’s coming to power and the release of Olusegun Obasanjo
from prison.

General Abubakar Abdulsalami tried to repair Nigeria’s broken image and also woo the
international community by first putting in motion a transition programme to hand over to
civilian rule between 1998 and 1999.General Abubakar Abdulsalami’s program to end military
rule was well received by the international community (Fawole,2000:24).
 Following his release from prison, President Olusegun Obasanjo contested in the 1999
general elections on the platform of People’s Democratic Party (PDP). President Olusegun
Obasanjo won the 1999 elections in Nigeria and assumed power in May 29, 1999.
The return to civilian rule went as scheduled: elections to the House of Representatives
and the Senate were held on February 20 and March 7th, 1999, respectively, and presidential
elections were conducted on February 27. At the end of the elections, INEC declared Chief
Olusegun Obasanjo the winner and on May 29, 1999, General Abubakar handed over power to
the elected president, General Obasanjo (International Crisis Group, 2006).
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s assumption of office marked the beginning of a new civil
administration, after years of strained relationships with members of the international community
by General Abacha regime. On assumption of office, the administration left no one in doubt of
his administration’s desire to open Nigeria`s door to the world and restore the past glory Nigeria
and its citizens enjoyed (Ajayi, 2006).
President Olusegun Obasanjo contested for a second term under the People’s Democratic
Party in 2003(Anifowoshe and Babawale, 2003). The 2003 elections was contested for by over
thirty political parties but was won by President Olusegun Obasanjo of the PDP (Anifowoshe,
2003).
President Olusegun Obasanjo carried out extensive social, economic and political
programs between 1999-2007.These political programs were all designed to broaden and deepen
Nigeria’s democracy and also tackle the problems that affected Nigeria’s political system.
President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration between 1999 and 2007 made use of
constitutional provisions such as such as the federal character principle and principle of fiscal
federalism; zoning, rotational presidency and power-sharing.
To ensure the problems in Nigeria’s political system were solved. These principles listed
major political posts within the federation to specific individuals within the six geo-political
zones. This was what led to the emergence of Obasanjo as the presidential candidate, Atiku
Abubakar as vice-presidential candidate, David Mark as senate president, and Dimeji Bankole as
the speaker of the House of Representatives in the second term of Obasanjo’s presidency
between 2003 and 2007 (Campbell, 2011).
President Olusegun Obasanjo was also interested in Nigeria’s foreign affairs and
acknowledged the bad state which Nigeria’s image was in when he assumed office. Nigeria had
many problems such as a poor image in the international arena, debts, corruption, political
instability among other problems. Thus, President Olusegun Obasanjo was determined to rebuild
Nigeria.
He, therefore, adopted a Policy that was centered on image building. President Olusegun
Obasanjo’s Policy vision was the restoration of Nigeria’s image as a key player in the
international system ,which was battered by the military regime of General Sani Abacha
following the hanging of Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other activists despite international plea for
clemency (Ajayi, 2006). In his inaugural speech of May 29, 1999, he stated that;

Nigeria, once a well-respected country and a key role player in

international bodies became a pariah nation. We shall pursue a
dynamic Policy to promote friendly relations with all Nations…It is
our firm resolve to restore Nigeria fully to her previous prestigious
position in the comity of nations (Obasanjo, 1999; 13).

His major Policy focus areas were: to improve the image of the Nigeria and give
sense of discipline and trust to Nigerians, at home or abroad, recovery of looted
Nigerian monies kept in foreign countries, to press for foreign debt relief and
inflow of, peace, unity and security in Africa, international cooperation and
partnership and due recognition for the worth of Nigeria and Africa at international
level (Adeniran, cited in Isyaku, 2011).

He lamented how Nigeria had fallen from its pride of place over the years stating
thus:

Nigeria, once a well-respected country and a key player in

international bodies, became a pariah nation”, adding that the task
before his administration would be to “pursue a dynamic Policy to
promote friendly relations with all nations” and to “play a
constructive role in the United Nations and the Organisation of
African Unity, and other international bodies (Obasanjo, 1999).

He stated further his Policy agenda in 2001 stating thus;

 The current thrust of Nigeria’s Policy is to regain respectability and
relevance in the international community…The grand strategy seeks
the conversion of Policy activities into concrete achievements which
are of direct benefit to Nigeria. The main objective is “peace, security
and prosperity through friendship”. The goals to be achieved are as
follows: (a) Economic integration of ECOWAS; b) Responsibilities in
Multilateral organizations- UN, AU, the Commonwealth, OPEC,
NAM, and G-77; (c) Cooperation with the Far East; (d) Promotion of
foreign investment and trade; (e) Debt reduction (Gusau, 2001: 12).

Nigeria’s Policy objectives and principles as at the time President Olusegun

Obasanjo was in power are listed in section 19 of the 1999 constitution. The Policy
objectives and principles are:

• Promotion and protection of national interest.

• Promotion of African integration and support for African unity.

• Promotion of international cooperation for the consolidation of universal peace and respect
among all nations and elimination of discriminations in all its manifestations.

• Respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as the seeking of settlement of
international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication.

• Promotion of a just world economic order (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Section 19,1999).

While his Policy was aimed at improving Nigeria’s external image, President Olusegun
Obasanjo was also interested in issues concerning Africa also. The next section looks into the
objectives of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s African policy.

3.2 Overview Of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s African Policy

From independence, Nigeria’s Policy has largely focused on Africa as the center
piece of her Policy, with attention directed towards political and economic
cooperation, peaceful dispute resolution, and global nonalignment.
 It is important to note that different leaders in the history of Nigeria have adopted
various leadership styles in the conduct of Nigeria’s African Policy. The objectives
of Obasanjo’s African Policy are explained below.

3.2.1 Regional Conflict Resolution

President Olusegun Obasanjo was not new to governance and also issues concerning
Africa. During his military years, General Obasanjo pursued regional conflict resolution by
leading two peacekeeping efforts in Chad between 1979 and 1982. He was also involved in
mediation efforts in the Tanzania-Uganda conflict, the Western Sahara dispute and the Ethiopia-
Somalia war. Thus, President Olusegun Obasanjo was well informed and experienced on issues
concerning Africa.
The civilian administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo inherited Nigeria’s regional
obligations. One of such regional obligation was the peacekeeping efforts in Sierra Leone where
Nigerian troops had been engaged in the resolution of the country’s civil war since it began in
1991(Fawole,2001). The climax of the crisis was the Nigerian military’s invasion of Freetown in
February 1998 to dislodge the military regime of Major Johnny Paul Koroma who had illegally
taken over power from the democratic government of Tejan Kabbah about eight months earlier.
General Sani Abacha had ordered the invasion acting under the authority of ECOWAS
and the encouragement of the international community. The administration of General Abubakar
also inherited the same burden of regional peace keeping (Fawole, 2004).
President Olusegun Obasanjo was aware that the huge amount of money being spent on
foreign operations was affecting Nigeria’s national resources and during his presidential
campaigning in 1998/1999, he promised to bring back Nigerian troops from Sierra Leone. He
made this promise due to the demand from Nigerians to bring back Nigerian troops. Nigerians
were concerned about the amount of money amounting into millions being spent on troops daily
on the ECOMOG operations in Sierra Leone at a time when Nigeria was suffering from external
debts of about $32 billion (Fawole, 2001).
Nigerians had been skeptical of their country’s involvement in the crisis in Sierra Leone,
because it was originally at the instance of General Sanni Abacha who was not loved by
Nigerians. The opinion held among Nigerians was that the February invasion of Freetown
ordered by General Sanni Abacha, to remove a military regime and restore a democratic regime,
was wrong headed. The argument was that after all General Sanni Abacha had refused to allow
democracy in Nigeria.
Thus, it was important for Chief Obasanjo as the presidential candidate of the
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to dance to popular tunes (Fawole, 2004).
President Olusegun Obasanjo had the peaceful resolution of conflict as one of his African
policy objectives and saw the need to address the challenges to international security by adopting
measures to reduce the risk of insecurity in the sub-region (Fawole, 2000).This lead to his
involvement in negotiations for the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sierra Leone which was
the fastest and surest way to bring back Nigerian troops home.
President Olusegun Obasanjo worked with sub regional leaders to get the government of
President Tejan Kabbah and Revolutionary United Front (RUF) to sign the Lome Peace Accords
on July 7,1999. The agreement provided for among others amnesty for Corporal Fonday Sankoh
and his RUF rebels guaranteed their return from exile and re-integration into the government
through poet sharing formula.
Complications arose when the RUF abducted 34 people including members of the UN
Monitoring team, Nigerian soldiers, British Military personnel and journalists. Hence, Nigerian
troops could not be pulled out of Sierra Leone as quickly as promised by President Olusegun
Obasanjo. The United Nations intervened in the Sierra Leone crises with the deployment of a
multinational peacekeeping force, which was the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone
(UNAMSIL).This intervention bailed Nigeria out of its huge financial commitment as Nigerian
troops were subsumed under the UN command which took charge of the funding of the
peacekeeping operation. Nigeria was thus relieved of its financial burden (Fawole, 2004).
Nigeria was also largely responsible for the "thawing of the ice" in the potentially
dangerous land crisis in Zimbabwe. The land crisis in that country was rightly identified as a
potential flashpoint for conflict, which could engulf most of Southern Africa, with ramifications
reaching far beyond the African continent. Through the instrumentality of the Commonwealth,
the Abuja Agreement was brokered, to break the logjam.
This Agreement remains the most credible mechanism for resolving the Zimbabwean
crisis. The administration demonstrated that it was committed to ensuring that peace reigned
supreme on the African continent since peace and stability were the minimum conditions for any
meaningful development (Obasanjo, 2014). President Obasanjo was highly committed to the
resolution of conflict in Africa (Saliu, 2010).
From the examples shown above, it can be observed that the administration of President
Obasanjo administration saw the need to address the challenges to international security by
adopting measures to reduce the risk of insecurity in the sub-region (Fawole, 2000). President
Obasanjo’s administration showed profound interest in resolving conflicts in Africa and
contributed immensely in the resolution of conflicts in Africa.

3.2.2. ECOMOG

Peacekeeping has been one area of interest in Nigeria’s Policy. Nigeria participated in the
first ever peacekeeping operation in Africa, under the supervision of the United Nations in
1960s. Congo Leopoldville, the former Zaire was accidentally, the first on the African continent.
In addition, President Obasanjo and other young Nigerian officers were drafted to the former
Congo to maintain stability (UN, 2010).
Nigeria’s participation in peacekeeping has been well commended and has raised
Nigeria’s profile in the international arena he ethics of peacekeeping operation was strictly
adhered to by the Nigerian army. President Obasanjo’s past experience in peacekeeping
operations made him knowledgeable on the implications of participating in peacekeeping
operations.
It was during General Abacha`s tenure, ECOMOG became an extension of Nigeria`s
influence against the sovereign integrity of countries in the sub-region (Fawole, 2000). Over the
years, Nigeria has been very active in ECOMOG for the restoration of peace in Liberia and
Sierra Leone (1990-1998).
Nigeria`s effort to restore peace in the sub-region after huge financial, human and
material supports were committed to ECOMOG activities in Liberia and Sierra Leone
intervention went unnoticed. At home, Nigerians were denied the basic services, which they
should enjoy. Even the world powers did little to bring peace to these trouble countries.
Therefore, Nigeria became the sole sponsor of ECOMOG and even paid the wages of other
contributing countries.
President Obasanjo’s administration acknowledged peacekeeping operation as a huge and
demanding task. He stated thus:
 Our national interest requires the establishment and maintenance of
peace and stability in the West African sub-region. Specifically in the
case of Sierra-Leone, Nigeria shall endeavor to ensure a quick
resolution of the crisis by dialogue and diplomatic means by
increasing activity on the second track of peace and reconciliation.
This will enable Nigeria to reduce her commitments in both theatres
but particularly in Sierra-Leone (Obasanjo, 1999).

Unlike the previous military administrations, when this operation started, these
administrations blindly committed Nigeria`s hard earn resources to maintain peace in these
countries without having back up from the sub region and the international community (Ajayi,
2006). To President Obasanjo, if Nigeria was to be involved in future peacekeeping operations,
then all relevant stakeholders must be ready to contribute to Nigeria’s efforts.

3.2.3. Debt Cancellation

The issue of debt cancellation was important to President Olusegun Obasanjo who as a
private citizen had campaigned for debt relief for African countries. The modus operandi of
servicing Nigeria’s debt and the debt of others, raised a fundamental question, on how countries
in this region ended up paying the creditors (The Paris and London Clubs) more than what they
bargain for.
President Olusegun Obasanjo embarked on a debt cancellation to press for the total
cancellation of debts, owed by poor countries of the southern hemisphere ( thisdayonline.com). In
addition, paying back the debt consumed a huge proportion of Nigeria annual budget. Therefore,
President Obasanjo’s administration was very keen in taking the debt cancellation campaign to
the world powers, international organizations and institutions wherever he travelled to (Ayuba,
2011).
At the time of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s inauguration, Nigeria’s debt was $32
billion and the debt had gradually risen after General Obasanjo’s military regime took the first
huge loan of about $1 billion in 1978.Through mis-management at home and increasing interest
rates, successive regimes allowed the debt to grow beyond control.
Thus, Nigeria became more indebted and the need to reduce external debt became a
major issue for the administration of President Obasanjo who used every global forum to
campaign for debt cancellation or relief. He made a moral issue out of it stating Africa’s future
will be permanently mortgaged without debt relief (Fawole, 2004).
 President Obasanjo was of the view that debt relief or cancellation would free Africa’s
resources for the execution of social programs, which would lead to improvement of the
economy of the African (Obasanjo, 2001: 4).

3.3 President Olusegun Obasanjo’s Policy Structure

Due to President Obasanjo’s vast experience in Policy matters, it was not surprising
that he had ideas on how he wanted the Policy of Nigeria to be carried out.
According to Inamate (2001: 292-298), President Obasanjo was active in the Policy
formulation process. Fawole (2001) agreed with this position and noted the strong
personality of President Obasanjo in his Policy approach.
Fawole while analyzing the institutions, structures, processes and performance of the
Policy during the administration of President Obasanjo reached the same conclusion as Inamate
that although there were ministries in charge of Policy at that time, President Obasanjo was very
active in the Policy process (Folarin, 2012).
It can be said that President Obasanjo had a lot of interest in Policy than any other
leader of Nigeria since independence.
During his military years, President Obasanjo was known for being personally involved
in directing things. He was responsible for the attempts to redefine Nigeria’s Policy in concrete
terms stating the cardinal objectives of Nigeria’s Policy. To achieve this he set up the Adebayo
Adedeji Panel on the Review of Policy with the mandate to overhaul the contents of foreign
relations (Fawole, 2004). Although these recommendations were said to be unrealizable, they
showed the administration recognized the fact that Nigeria’s Policy needed to be changed.
In the same vein, President Obasanjo brought new ideas into the conduct of
external relations during his civilian regime. He created new institutions and
structures such as the Ministry of Cooperation and Integration in Africa. The new
ministry was responsible for cooperation and integration in Africa. In addition to
the new ministry, other offices were rested under the administration of President
Obasanjo. These included the office of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs a
position that did not exist under military rule, Senior Special Assistant on Policy
(Fawole, 2004).
 Saliu (2006) saw the many appointments into the Foreign Service as a major drawback
for Policy making. The presence of many players, including several Ministers of Foreign Affairs
in policy making process with the actual decision taken by the President, was seen as
unnecessary. It can be seen that President Obasanjo has a history of being personally involved in
the Policy of his administration.
The administration of President Obasanjo inherited a Policy structures and
institutions that had been weakened by military rule, particularly during the Abacha
administration (Folarin, 2012). The 1999 constitution introduced the creation of
certain new structures and institutions that would occupy some roles in the Policy
environment. According to Fawole (2004:8), the institutions included the
Presidency, the National Assembly, the Federal Ministries and Parastatals, and
other agencies whose schedules of duties and functions have Policy implications.

3.3.1 Presidency
Policy making was primarily within the hands of the President and He was the chief
maker of both the domestic and foreign policies. He was influenced by three factors: his personal
vision and that of his political group (The People’s Democratic Party), and in line with the
demands of the domestic environment and international community (Folarin, 2012).
According to Akinyemi (2003), the 1999 Constitution gave the President power not only
in domestic affairs but also placed him at the very top and in a position of monopoly of the
power to make Policy decisions based on his discretion.

3.3.3 National Assembly

The legislative arm of government is supposed to be part of the Policy formulation

process. The National Assembly’s power and role in Policy matters is implied in
several ways which include: legislative approvals that can make the country’s
armed forces to be deployed for external wars such as collective security purposes.
Other areas where the federal legislative exercises control in foreign affairs include
the ratification and renunciation of treaties and agreements (Folarin, 2012).
 3.4 Instruments Used By President Olusegun Obasanjo In Pursuing The
African Policy.
The instrument for conducting Policy generally refers to the means or mechanism used
by states in conducting their relations with other states. These include diplomacy, propaganda,
militarism, economic devises and cultural mechanism. The administration of President Obasanjo
made use of certain instruments in pursuing the African policy they include:

3.4.1. Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the most peaceful form of negotiation in international relations. It is the act
of dealing with other nations through negotiation and discussion. President Obasanjo opted for
diplomacy as against the military option during the crisis in Sierra Leone. According to him,
Nigeria’s role would be:

the establishment and maintenance of peace and stability in the West

African sub-region. Specifically, in the case of Sierra-Leone, we shall
endeavor to ensure a quick resolution of the crisis by dialogue and
diplomatic means by increasing activity on the second track of peace
and reconciliation. This will enable us to reduce our commitments in
both (Sierra Leone and Liberia) theatres, but particularly in Sierra
Leone (Obasanjo, 1999: 12).

President Obasanjo regarded the era of war and the use of application of military
measures to resolve conflict in the Nigerian neighborhood as over. This is because of the need
for diplomatic engagements to consolidate the gains of peace, and to cut costs. This action
became necessary due to the cost of ECOMOG operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone which had
cost about 4 billion dollars since 1994. Nigeria assumed most of the financial burden, bearing a
cost of 1 million dollars per day (The Washington Times, 1999).
The reason President Obasanjo called for diplomacy in settling conflicts was because of
the need to use greater part of Nigeria’s resources to fulfill domestic social needs. Through
personal diplomacy, President Obasanjo was able to prevent conflicts in African countries such
as Sao-Tome and Principe, The Gambia, Togo, and Cote d’ Ivoire. Asylum was also granted to
Charles Taylor under the administration of President Obasanjo in an attempt to restore
democracy in Liberia and stop the crises in the country.
 Furthermore, Abuja was the venue for peaceful settlement of disputes concerning African
countries. This led to the creation of the office in the presidency on conflict resolution. President
Obasanjo also travelled around Africa in search for reconciliation for many African countries.
Another issue that was handled with diplomacy was the Bakassi dispute between Nigeria
and Cameron. Nigeria under the administration of President Obasanjo chose to be diplomatic
about settling the land dispute (Sanda, 2004: 278-279). By bringing the issue before the
International Court of Justice at The Hague and abiding by the court’s ruling. This is an issue
that has almost caused a big crisis between Nigeria and Cameroon in the past. However, Nigeria
accepted the ruling and proceeded to work actively towards its implementation (Folarin, 2012).

3.4.2 Economic Diplomacy

Economic diplomacy is a situation whereby a country engages in activities that will boost
its economy and wellbeing of its citizens. Economic diplomacy involves decision-making,
policy-making, and advocating of the state’s business interests.
It requires the application of technical expertise that analyze the effects of a
country’s (receiving state) economic situation on its political climate and on the
sending state’s economic interests (Ajaebili, 2011:279).
Economic diplomacy was first introduced by General Ike Nwachukwu, Nigeria’s minister
of foreign affairs in 1987. Economic diplomacy was intended to make Policy serve the country’s
goal of economic development (Fawole, 2003: 152). In similar vein, President Obasanjo’s
administration also encouraged economic diplomacy.
President Obasanjo’s commitment to economic diplomacy can be seen in the role Nigeria
played in the formation of the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and African
Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).With the vision of good governance and economic recovery in
Africa (Akinterinwa, 2004).All this was done to foster economic relations between Nigeria and
Africa.

3.4.3 Regional Integration

 President Obasanjo believed that the integration of African economies could be
accelerated through the proposed African Union (AU). This led the Nigerian government to
support the adoption of the treaty establishing the African Union. It was due to President
Obasanjo's intervention that the Heads of States adopted the Constitutive Act of the Union,
during the Lome Summit in December 2000.

It was Nigeria’s belief that if the African Union lived up to the expectations
of becoming an instrument for political, economic and social transformation of the
continent, then the ideals and aspirations of the founding fathers of the OAU of a
united, strong and prosperous Africa would have been achieved (Obasanjo, 2014).
Furthermore, the Obasanjo administration spearheaded the 'Fast Track'
approach to integration in West Africa at the 22nd Summit of ECOWAS Authority
of Heads of States and Governments in Lome, Togo, on December 9th, 1999. This
process, which originally involved economic collaborations with Ghana, now
expanded into the creation of a Free Trade Area involving Nigeria, Benin, Togo,
Niger and Ghana.
According to Obasanjo, (2014) the integration with West African countries
led to the integration of currencies, transport and power systems. Additionally,
there was sub-regional cooperation which was the successful inauguration of the
Gulf of Guinea Commission (GGC) in Libreville, Gabon in November 1999 which
was proposed by Nigeria.
The Gulf of Guinea Commission was made up of Nigeria, Cameroon,
Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe, Congo, DRC and Angola. The main objective of
the commission was to strengthen economic and political cooperation among
member states and provide a forum for cooperation within sub- regional
organizations such as ECOWAS and the Central African Economic Community
(CEMAC).
The launching of the GGC which was a major diplomatic victory for Nigeria was
successful due to the new democratic dispensation in the country (Obasanjo, 2014). As the
chairman of the G77 in 2000, Obasanjo, together with former Libyan leader, Muammar
Ghaddafi, proposed a South Healthcare Delivery Program that was adopted at the Havana
Summit of the group.
 The aim was to provide assistance to the Healthcare sector of the needy members of the
G77. The program formally took off in July 2002 with the first batch of volunteers heading for
Chad, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone and Niger.
The budget for the program was estimated at $21 million and both Nigeria and Libya
contributed about 50% of the budget while Cuba supported with thousands of medical staff
(Obasanjo, 2014). From the above cited examples it is clear that President Obasanjo used
regional integration as a tool to advance his African policy. Promoting economic and social
policies that had the interest of Africa at heart.
The next chapter will look at the origin of the crisis in Darfur and President Obasanjo’s
contribution to ensuring peace in Darfur.

REFERENCE

1. "The Press and Political Repression in Nigeria: 1999-2003" by Abiodun Adeniyi,

Journal of African Studies and Development, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2013)

 2. "Nigeria's Press Under Obasanjo: A Study of the Impact of Political Pressure on

Journalistic Practice" by Olusola Olorunyomi, African Journalism Studies, Vol. 24, No.

2 (2003)

3. "Obasanjo's Nigeria: A Critical Analysis of the First Term" by Adebayo Olukoshi,

African Affairs, Vol. 102, No. 406 (2003)

4. "The Media and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria: 1999-2003" by Freedom C.

Onuoha, Journal of Media and Communication Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2013)

5. "Nigeria's Press and the Struggle for Democracy: 1999-2003" by Toyin Falola,

Journal of African History, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2003)

These references are academic studies and articles that provide in-depth analysis and

critique of the press during Obasanjo's first term as president.

REFERENCE CHAPTER THREE

- "Olusegun Obasanjo," by Britannica

- "1999 Nigerian presidential election," by Wikipedia

- "Obasanjo: from a Nigerian village to the pinnacle of power on the continent"

- "Profile: Olusegun Obasanjo," by BBC News

- "A man of controversy (Chapter 1) - Obasanjo, Nigeria and the World," by

Cambridge University Press & Assessment

- "Olusegun Obasanjo," by InterAction Council