Appraisement of glocalisation in the context of Nigeria’s foreign policy: A concentric approach

Abstract

This paper examines the nexus between Nigeria’s foreign policy and glocalisation. Glocalisation is an emerging concept in foreign policy discourse, with the sole intent of forging a synergy between globalisation, global governance, and local relations, hinging on domestic peculiarities. As it were, foreign policy has largely projected the interest of the ruling class and other private interests rather than the greater good regardless of the gains for the ruling elites, as posited by Jeremy Bentham. The concentric model was the theoretical framework used by the study to explain the levels of relation from the core to the periphery, a globalised foreign policy to a glocalised foreign policy. Qualitative research methods were adopted for this study, using secondary sources of data collection, and textual analysis. While little or no attention has been paid to glocalisation efforts in foreign policy discourse in Africa, it has been on the table of discussion for the western world, notwithstanding the current level of development occasioned by diplomatic relations worldwide. Progressively, within foreign policy discourses, the need to glocalise foreign policy cannot be overemphasised, as it marks the beginning of real polity as explained by Aristotle, as against simply focusing on the localisation of globalisation.

Keywords:

• glocalisation
• core-periphery
• Nigeria
• foreign policy
• concentric circle

1. Introduction

On a global scale, ideas move rapidly and overwhelmingly, and at other times ubiquitously. The central idea of globalisation has evolved and spread all over the world, making developing states more dependent, and developed states are more productive. This is due to factors such as the effects of foreign aid, economic liberalisation policies and measures, and international barriers to export (OECD, 2012), in other instances, brain drains, interference in governance and politics through the power of ideas and legitimacy, and so on are responsible. The loopholes in globalisation ideals are so evident in recent times due to the increase in the global education index (OECD, 2016) which has also improved the way developing countries and emerging powers react to global ideas and imposition on their local territories (Max & Esteban, 2017).

There is no doubt that not all the manifestations of globalisation are perverted. Phenomena like the global transference of technical know-how, a globalised network of technocrats, and transfer of industrialisation, among others, are positive aspects of globalisation, but the establishment of local or domestic peculiarities into the workings of globalisation will take the ideals to a whole new level of productivity that is not tilted towards one part than the other. The synergy between the global and local arenas will birth a glocalised system, that is, a system that relies on an aggregate symbiotic relationship rather than a superior-inferior relationship within the international society. In a society such as Nigeria, with a concentric approach to its foreign policy, glocalisation of its foreign policy is a perspective that if rigorously driven might engineer the economic strength and aggregate development needed within the system.

To fully comprehend the essentials of foreign policy, concentricism, and glocalisation, a review of literature is sacrosanct. Subsequently, this paper reviewed glocalisation and concentric foreign policy approach as a theoretical base, then the three levels of relationships within the concentric circle. The study also finds the glocalised concentric model as a suitable foreign policy trajectory for Nigeria, after which recommendations and conclusions concluded the study.

1.1. Glocalisation

Glocalisation is an emerging concept in foreign policy discourse, with the sole intent of forging a synergy between globalisation, global governance, and peripheral relations, hinging on domestic peculiarities. According to Giddens (1990), the maximisation of the peculiarities of different localities in a way that local happenings and trajectories shape the policies and strategies to be implemented within its jurisdiction, whether they originated externally or internally is glocalisation. To be aloof from the loopholes that globalisation possesses as identified by Fischer (2003), Tadić (2006) and Aisbett (2003, 2007), is to be truly blind to antics within international politics. Fischer (2003, pp. 3–4) identified globalisation as a process of continuous interdependence among countries and their citizens, adding that, however, migration and labour flows are even more stringent and less globalised than they were about a century ago. Further arguing that globalisation not only covers the economic spheres but also the political, technological, and cultural spheres thereby promoting Americanisation at the expense of national and local cultures. Localisation, on the other hand, validates as another form of isolationism. Localisation is the entrenchment of locally developed civilisation, products, goods, and services in the domestic environment such that it is impervious to external influences in whatsoever form such influences take. Localisation seeks to be free from interdependence and interconnectedness in such an extreme fashion that leaves no loopholes. As Albala-Bertrand (2009) puts it, “ … local economy cannot by definition have spreading effects toward the national economy.” The local economy cannot sustain the total population of a state due to the peculiarity of resource distribution across the universe; however, an unhindered dependence on the globalisation of goods and services without a supporting structure to localise such in the domestic realm will lead to a subtle and dynamic institutionalisation of external allegiance to the core state and/or its population.

Huntington (1993) in the book “The Third Wave of Democratisation” emphasises the necessity to bring governance and indeed political relevance to the people (grassroots/domestic sphere). Across several epochs in history, people demanded systems of government that cater for their needs directly. The third wave which coincided with the millennium represents an epoch that ushered in local peculiarities from a policy standpoint in the deepening of democratic principles. According to Kang (2006), the regulation approach is best to achieve localisation. This comes in a form of restructuring within the organs of government and their roles in the policy landscape of domestic governance. Peterson (1980) in line with the regulation approach explains that domestically entrenched economic growth policies are preferable to resource redistribution (redistributive) policies. That is, policies that will help the economy grow from within its domestic peculiarities are better than policies that only aim at wealth distribution rather than wealth expansion.

Observedly, economic globalisation is the base of many scholarly writings on globalisation such as Deardorff (2003), Ravallion (2003) and Elliott et al. (2002) to mention a few. Thus, the argument of whether globalisation is exploitative or not has been primarily based upon the concept of economic globalisation which deals with the interconnectedness and interrelatedness of people, goods, products, and services across borders seamlessly. Cultural globalisation, even though identified as an ideal of globalisation, is propagating Americanisation and suppressing domestic values and ways of life. Scholars like Fischer (2003), Aisbett (2003) and Tadić (2006) have identified this cultural propagation as Americanisation, and suppression being the outcome of this relationship since it is being promoted at the expense of local and domestic cultures.

Aisbett (2003, p. 7) explains that any country that wishes to be integrated into the global system needs to attract foreign investors, and to attract foreign investors, they need to provide an enabling environment in the form of economic policies for the investors which according to the investors has to be neo-liberal to be sound. Friedman (2000) refers to the outcome of such as the “golden straight jacket” for economic policymakers. It has been observed that the coercion of the neo-liberal Washington Consensus policies on the poor nations by the IMF and World Bank (IBRD), multinational corporations and the environment protocols by WTO are largely responsible for the development stages that these countries find themselves (Aisbett, 2003, pp. 7–9). Rodrick (1997, 2002) stresses that democratic policies, the nation-state and full global economic integration are not mutually compatible. Being abreast of the Marxist explanation of the base and the superstructure, once the base which is the economy is controlled by external policies to the advantage of foreign investors and multinational corporations, the superstructure is then at the mercy of the base, the outcome of which can be observed in the level and standard of living of workers, farmers, indigenous people, children, women, men, animal welfare and environmental welfare in the larger part of the global south. The recent take-over of Port Hambantota, Sri Lanka, by the Chinese government is another example of the negative effect of globalisation.

International Forum on Globalization (2003) also identified the political dimension that globalisation has shown over the years, while supporting Rodrick’s (1997, 2002) claim, stating the lack of self-determination for poor people since globalisation shifts the focus of decision-making to higher levels of government beyond the reach of democratic participation from the poor. The government of these countries strike deals without the input of the larger community of poor workers, and those decisions and deals directly affect them whether positively or negatively, and when all is said and done, the poor people will be the ones to bear the brunt. An example is the “Niger-Delta Oil Saga” that led to the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni 8 in Nigeria. Waltz (1999) rightly states that “the world is interdependent rather than integrated because with integration, the world will look like one big village … and it requires a government to protect, direct and control the interest of all (Utilitarianism), while in contrast, interdependence is ‘the mere mutualism’ of states (self-interest remains priority)”. The world can hardly be regarded as one village in the light of the polarised developmental structures, put in place by the powerful and wealthy countries through international and multinational agencies.

The foregoing review explains not that globalisation is a bad idea in itself but rather, that the implementation of globalisation has been polarised, economically, politically and culturally, leaving the gaps ever widening. Noteworthy also, is the need to incorporate a flexible form of localisation. Therefore, the entrenchment of an alternative is increasingly necessary to bridge the gap between the global economic policies and cultural diffusion and the local and domestic peculiarities; keeping abreast that none is superior to the other, therefore deserves equal representation, rather than outright marginalisation. Hence, glocalisation is important to play a redefining relationship between powerful and rich states, their agencies and the poor countries and their economies, if there is ever going to be any chance at global integration.

1.2. Concentric foreign policy approach

The concentric circle theory as a social construct theory first emanated from sociological studies by famous Sociologist, Ernest Burgess, in 1925 to describe the evolution of urban social structures. However, subsequent development on the theory made it valid in various fields of study such that the approach could fit perfectly into studies like foreign policy decision-making and analysis. Analysing the theory of the concentric circle shows that societal structures and constructs arose naturally without any actual planning. So also, national interests are frameworks that emanate from socio-political structures, which encompass the decision-making tier of government, the executive tier, and the policy interpreting ranks of the government and the populace. These conceived national interests are then drastically transformed into the country’s foreign policy, mostly without prior deliberate planning rather, consistency in role perception. Little wonder, Gambari (1989) resolved in his words that:

A country’s foreign policy revolves around its national interests. Nigeria is not and cannot be an exception to this. While Africa remains the centrepiece of our foreign policy, we cannot operate within a series of concentric circles which now effectively guides our behaviour on the African and world scene. The innermost circles of national interests involve Nigeria’s security –territorial integrity and political independence, and that of the neighbours of Nigeria. (Gambari, 1989)

The innermost circle is the intrinsic part of the concentric circle, and though all circles possess the same centre, the inner circle encapsulates the policies that exalt the populace and the national values. The next circle extends its focus to the immediate neighbours, that is, the countries within the sub-region, roundabout the core nation. The third circle represents the region within which the core nation exists, usually, the continent, which in this case is Africa, while the fourth circle represents the rest of the world. That is, the counterparts of the core nation upon the surface of the earth.

The extrinsic circles have been the focus of the country’s foreign relations in the international arena, rather than the intrinsic or core circle. The interventionist role of Nigeria for most of its endeavours played out mostly within the outer circles with almost outright disregard for the core, which in this case is the country itself. Nigeria’s focus has perambulated amongst the second, third and fourth circles and neglected the core which is supposed to be the nucleus—the powerhouse from which energy flows to the other circles in the concentric circle.

The need to rethink foreign policy has become a necessity in the 21^st century due to the popularity of the concept of globalisation and global governance and admittedly, glocalisation, a synergy between globalisation and localisation. Globalisation is the interconnectedness and interrelatedness of the marketplace, people, goods and services within the international system, while localisation is the indigenisation of policy decision-making to favour local content, population and peculiarities. As expounded by Giddens (1990), “the maximisation of the peculiarities of different localities in a way that local happenings and trajectories shape the policies and strategies to be implemented within its jurisdiction, whether they originated externally or internally is glocalisation”. Glocalisation of foreign policy, therefore, is a concept that creates a nexus between local interests and globally sought interests. The inter-relatedness and interconnectedness of the world has made the concept of globalisation popular. Almost every state in the world belongs to one international organisation (IOs) or the other (Chidozie et al.,, 2020; Duruji et al., 2019). A lot of external policies now influence the internal affairs of countries all around the world especially the third world. The need to be focused on a national interest becomes increasingly beneficial in the face of too many externally influenced policies flying all around the international system.

As Amao and Okeke-Uzodike (2015, pp. 10–12) rightly claimed, Nigeria’s contribution to ECOWAS is terrific while its return is ludicrous. This is shown in its 40% contribution to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and its meagre 7% of the total staff population in the ECOWAS Court of Justice which is located in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. While African Union (AU) has one of the lowest representations of the Nigerian workforce. Nigeria also lost to Burkina Faso at the AU Commission in 2007.

Monday (2010) lamented when he compared the workforce of Indians who work at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London due to the presence of a highly placed Indian in the Secretariat, with the number of Nigerians who ever had the opportunity to work under the UN during the almost four decades spent by Chief Anyaoku, which was close to none. Furthermore, to better understand these assertions, when Ngozi Ugo, a career diplomat was nominated for the position of UN Ombudsman and the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General 2007, and a very important prerequisite for the confirmation of the appointment was a diplomatic endorsement from her home government, Nigeria. Unfortunately, she lost the position eventually due to the lackadaisical attitude of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Attorney-General toward swift move in the advancement of the country’s primary interests abroad (Amao & Okeke-Uzodike, 2015; Monday, 2010).

The advent of oil and the subsequent oil boom gave Nigeria a bargaining chip in the international arena to face superpowers of the second half of the twentieth century such as the United States of America and the Union of Socialists’ Soviet Republic and even put pressure on them. But all was thrown away when the leadership elites of the country further mortgaged the country’s destiny into alien hands by taking the oil to other parts of the world for refinement, whereas we forfeit a greater chunk of other products extractable from the crude oil, while we pay immensely to get the refined products (Aluko, 1981, p. 1).

This is not to say that the populace does not have dividends to show for their taxes and human resource contributions ironically speaking, however, as Ashaver (2014, p. 5) asserted:

In the name of African unity and good neighbourhood, Nigeria has sacrificed a lot and continues to sacrifice for our continent. That is praiseworthy but most African countries seemed to have forgotten the sacrifices made by Nigeria to bring them out of their woes. Liberians and Sierra Leoneans have forgotten the loss of lives by Nigerian soldiers in the efforts to defend unity and peace in those countries. Though Africa should not be forgotten, Nigeria’s interests should come first in all our foreign policy analyses and decisions.

It has become increasingly important that any positive endeavour without, is inconsequential in the absence of real impact within and vice versa. While patriots are uncommon in the political space of the nation, there is an urgent need for the political disruption that will balance the imbalances and walk the crippling socio-political and economic brouhaha that is today present. And, until the concentric circle is re-visited and this time not theoretically, will the foreign policy options set by Nigeria reflect on Nigeria and Nigerians both at home and in the diaspora.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Nigeria and her neighbouring states in West Africa

Nigeria is today, the most populous black nation beyond a reasonable doubt. Nigeria has got more black people in the diaspora than any other single black nation or white nation in the world as the case may be. One would expect that the power of the population should culminate into some sort of leverage and power to achieve a certain set goal as embedded in the codified foreign policy document of the state, however, much could not be said of that leverage as the people are without good representation from Nigeria as evidence as shown over time (Ashaver, 2014; Mahmood, 2009; Monday, 2010)

The relationship between Nigeria and its West African counterparts has not been without its ups and downs, impunities and neglects. As the concentric circle was designed, the neighbouring sub-region was considered next relevant after the core is settled; therefore, Nigeria’s relationship with its neighbour was driven towards peaceful coexistence. West Africa, the region where Nigeria is situated, is a space occupied by Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone States, which would naturally have been a disturbed zone due to glaring differences such as ethnoreligious, socio-cultural and historical differences. This disadvantage led Nigeria to the strict resolution on peaceful co-existence. However, over the years, the generosity and benevolence of Nigeria has not been reciprocated by some neighbouring states, as impunities around the Nigerian borders are not new to its coastlines, especially from the closest neighbours. Furthermore, the influx of contraband goods and products, small and light weapons and illegal immigrants have been the order of the day and the Nigerian state has been observed to take lightweight decisional stands against these abuses.

Around the objective of fostering sub-regional economic cooperation and development, Nigeria contributed immensely to the establishment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in 1975. Since then, Nigeria has been at the forefront of the struggle to bring about unity in trade and investment endeavours within and among the states in the sub-region, while also engendering peace and order within the sub-region with its contribution to the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) which stands as the military sector of the ECOWAS. The impact of ECOMOG in Liberia and Sierra Leone explains to a great extent how much efficiency is obtainable within the ECOWAS-led ECOMOG which Nigeria’s troop constitutes a larger part of (Jooji, 2017; Kulendi, 1997; Tuck, 2000).

However, the issue of insecurity within the axis of the Nigerian territory is an age-long menace that has defiled the perceived strength of Nigeria within the West African sub-region; thus, researchers have linked the insecurities in Nigeria to political motivations, corruption, godfatherism, tribalism, nepotism, and terrorism. These insecurities have cost Nigeria over $300 billion (Nnaemeka et al., 2015). To the findings of Ajodo-Adebanjoko and Okorie (2014), within the periods of 1960 and 1999, the sum of over $400 billion was stolen from the Federal treasury by Nigerian leaders, while the subsequent effect saw the fall of the country’s GDP per capita from USD 1,010 to USD 300 between the early 1980s and 1999. While Nigeria flaunts its muscles as being capable of maintaining peace in the West African sub-region, Boko haram remains insurmountable as it constitutes a major force of insecurity within the country (Ajodo-Adebanjoko & Okorie, 2014, pp. 13–14).

The joint task force against Boko haram was not effective due to circumstances that could only be solved through Nigeria’s foreign policy outlook, coupled with the porosity of the Nigerian borderlines making the weakness of the Nigerian federation very glaring and the need to settle the majority of these problems from within very indispensable if any improvements will ever be recorded by the Nigerian government. According to Enor and Chime (2015, p. 1), harassment, molestation, human rights abuses and the neo-colonial presence of France are factors that cannot be excused when discussions on Nigeria and the West African sub-region are being made. While France seeks to strengthen its hold in Nigeria, insecurity in Nigeria that would shake the political stability of the country will be an advantage since Nigeria’s contest of power with France in the sub-region was precipitated by the stability and military strength of the country (Omede, 2000). In the words of Sinclair (1983), after the establishment of ECOWAS in 1975, “the member states agreed to evolve gradually common policies in the areas of transport, communications, energy … agricultural processing and marketing … ” This was thought to be best for the sub-region at the time.

However, the intentions of the member states, as agreed upon is that the organisation will progressively transition into a customs union within an expended 15 years from the time the treaty is ratified (ECOWAS, 1975; Art. 12), but this proposed custom union is yet to materialise even after 43 years of the establishment. Tentatively, the overt concentration of Nigeria on Africa, over state matters is to an extent responsible for the retrogressive development of its economy and politics. The territorial crises between Nigeria and Cameroon that ended up with the ICJ’s declaration of the Bakassi Peninsula and part of the Lake Chad region in favour of Cameroon was a pointer to the perceived influence of Nigeria within the sub-region.

More recent is the happenings in the gold coast of Africa, Ghana, where non-Ghanaians which include Nigerians are stiffened trade-wise and discriminatingly expelled from their daily trading just because they are not Ghanaians. This is similar to the build-up that initiated the non-tolerance of the Jews by the Germans that led to the Holocaust in 1933 on German soil (Britannica.com, 2018; Lakemfa, 2018). Even though Ghana is a member state of ECOWAS, the bad blood between the two countries started in 1969/70 when the Ghanaian Prime Minister expelled Nigerians from Ghana and a few years later in 1983, President Shehu Shagari reciprocated the diplomatic gesture with the popular “Ghana-Must-Go” saga.

Lakemfa (2018) opined that the Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama was quite naïve and rudderless to have exonerated the Ghanaian government of instigating the attacks against Nigerians simply because the government stayed the executive implementation of the discriminatory law shortly after the Ghanaian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Ms Shirley Ayorkor-Botchwey visited Nigeria (GIPC Law 2013, Section 27:¹ derived from the GIPC Act of 1994) even after announcing it and codifying it in an Act, the Minister went ahead on pro-Ghana advocacy. This also affects Nigerians in South Africa and other parts of the world. The absence of due diligence within the Foreign Affairs Ministry, which could entail spy investigations, and consultations with the Nigerian community in the host country have cost Nigerians in the diaspora a lot in property loss and economic intimidation (Lakemfa, 2018).

2.2. Nigeria in the purview of the African union

According to Sinclair (1983), issues that hinged on “ … right of self-determination does not apply in Nigeria’s view, to the ethnic groups within member-states of the OAU, but only to insurgents against colonial or white minority rule.” The truth is not far from this in modern-day Nigeria, even when the country is a signatory to the United Nations treaty on human rights and the UN Charter which is a supposed blueprint for the state’s behaviour within the international system, both containing the objective for self-determination. The objective of Nigeria’s foreign policy aimed to elevate Nigeria’s reputation as the giant of Africa. Nonetheless, there existed a lack of consistent commitment to maintain this regional leadership. In parallel, the assistance rendered to various African States, without a corresponding reciprocal arrangement or a clear strategy for the recovery of resources directed towards Nigeria’s advantage and the betterment of its extensive populace, underscores the disingenuousness of the political leaders towards the region they pledged to safeguard and enhance.

In Gowon’s era, he backed efforts to end Africa’s colonial past, strengthen global ties, affirm black people’s value, uphold self-determination, improve living standards, and honour human dignity. Nations supporting these causes were considered friends. Maintaining African leadership involves policy choices. Viewing leadership perception as crucial, not just concrete power, shapes international relations emphasizing goodwill over mere strength in the global system.

Nigeria’s efforts in the African continent notwithstanding, some African states remain safe havens for terrorist networks that lay siege on some parts of Northern Nigeria, such as the Boko Haram Islamic sect. The Nigerian economy still witnesses a lot of smuggling through its borders from neighbouring countries like the Niger Republic, Benin Republic, Republic of Togo, and Chad. These smugglings are as follows, but not limited to these; smuggling of food and fruits, clothing materials, small and light weapons and automobiles. The consequences of these actions are that Nigeria will have to spend massively to keep its borders close and free from smugglers, and the Nigerian agricultural and textile industries, and automobile assemblages and manufacturers will have hard times thriving. The vulnerability of the Nigerian system to its African counterparts is high and thus erodes legitimacy and power. In a presentation to the United Nations Goodwill Mission, the (Federal Government of Nigeria, 1996) emphasised the border issues between itself and its neighbours, stating that, “conflicts within the sub-regional borders have been avoided largely due to the principle of good neighbourliness which the country holds dearly even at the expense of its national interest … ” (FGN, 1996). Having the foreign policy objective negate or be in contrast to or at the expense of the country’s national interest is an inimical paradox. A country like “Nigeria with oil wealth, a large army and a large pool of well-educated citizens” is gradually moving back in time vis-à-vis prospects and actualities (Gberevbie et al., 2023; Nuamah, 2003).

2.3. Nigeria in global perspective

The world has, since the advent of globalisation, become interconnected and interdependent. However, some countries seem to be more equal than others. It is no news that the financial capital of the world is the United States of America (Ogunnowo & Chidozie, 2020), and anything that affects the US will inadvertently affect the rest of the world, such as the global economic meltdown which was a result of the United States Federal Reserve’s breakdown (Olaopa et al., 2012). As countries all over the world align and realign towards specific interests, Nigeria is not left out of the foreign relations among states.

Due to the perception of a national role that Nigeria has consistently acclaimed to itself since independence, the country has sought to play active roles within the international community. These roles, acting as Africa and the black diaspora’s spokesperson, are benchmarked on the perceived relevance of being the most populous black nation on the planet. To prove that Nigeria as a state is sold out to world unity and democratisation, it also has massively been a force to reckon with vis-à-vis United Nations Missions all around the world (Amao & Okeke-Uzodike, 2015, p. 8). However, the foreign policy outlook of the country is such that has accommodated domestic contradictions (Nuamah, 2003, p. 8) with blurry distinctions between global and domestic boundaries. Some conspiracy theorists would tag these incidences as passive neo-imperialism.

The rentier status of the Nigerian state is another factor that influences its interaction with the rest of the world. Nigeria is one of the largest producers of crude oil and a strong member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which make it a trade partner to a lot of developed countries. So long as crude oil stays relevant to the fuelling of world economies, Nigeria will always be financially capable to run its economy, but in the instance that alternative fuelling becomes popular and cheap, the mono-economy that the Nigerian government runs might just collapse into ruins and anarchy. Even though after a lot of pressure, agriculture which was once the country’s mainstay regained relevance, the oil economy cannot be easily diversified due to the massive gains that proceed out of it, or/and the corrupt pockets that are filled with neo-imperialist agenda of the colonialists in oil wealthy Nigeria (Nuamah, 2003, p. 10).

Nigeria’s relationship with France is worthy of note since France’s proximity and influence on francophone West Africa have posed threats to Nigeria’s leadership role and hegemonic influence in the region. This is also important because, historically, Nigeria has been among the top three African economic partners of France ahead of several francophone countries. The statistics are much more improved with Macron’s visit to Nigeria and his talk at the Tony Elumelu Foundation (TEF) conference (T.E.F, 2018).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Glocalised concentric model: a foreign policy approach

Without mincing words, concentricism explains the ramifications of Nigeria’s foreign policy within and without its territory in a bid to unravel the unit of the relationship between the country and the external actors in order of preference, while glocalisation explains how the outcome of these external relations (including globalisation) can be integrated into the domestic sphere of the country to produce a ripple effect that models the global while at the same time unwavering in the entrenchment of domestic peculiarities. Pursuing the core value of concentricism—National Interest—is at the heart of every state. However, how they go about achieving these interests vary from state to state and from one successive government to another. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with pushing for the independence and apartheid struggles of a once subjugated continent such as Africa, but when the primary goal of growth and development is side-lined to achieve a superficial supranational hegemony then something is fundamentally wrong).

As Nwangwu and Okoye (2014, p. 33) found out, the sole reason for external relations with countries within the international system is “the need to obtain some of the resources which it desires for its well-being but lie outside its territories.” Any policy that is contrary to this assertion is rudderless and unfruitful. It is, however, very easy to be caught in the web of secondary priorities if the foundation of such implementation is not based on a developmental approach. Critical thinking, policy development and willpower/determination are not so easy, and that is why we have fewer people on the Forbes list than on the unemployed list, fewer people on the Guinness Book of Records than world consumers of Guinness products (Forbes, 2023; Pilastro, 2023). It has become a concern, however, that Nigeria’s soft power has immensely reduced in influence over the past decade due to observable leadership inadequacies across a majority of the Ministries and public sector outfits within the ambience of the Nigerian government.

Some of the countries neighbouring Nigeria and its fellow ECOWAS member states may appear to be friendly neighbours, but upon closer examination of their actions, it becomes evident that their intentions are more parasitic in nature, akin to how leeches exploit their hosts. Despite this, we cannot simply sever these ties due to the intertwined nature of our borders and the mutually beneficial cross-border trade (Omede, 2006). However, it is important to recognize that these associations also contribute significantly to the challenges we face, such as shortages in food, arms, and vehicles, which in turn impact our nation’s security. While the idea of cutting off these connections might seem appealing, a more cautious approach is needed. Complete disassociation could potentially exacerbate our security vulnerabilities, given that our current capabilities are insufficient to fully secure our borders.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that Nigeria’s choices have broader implications for the entire African region. The country’s journey towards democracy, managing ethnic diversity and maintaining religious harmony resonate beyond our borders. Thus, the way Nigeria navigates its path can send ripples across the region, influencing the approaches other nations take in dealing with their respective challenges.

The improvement of the Nigerian economy will not only affect Nigerians but the whole of Africa (since Africa is germane to the foundation of the Nigerian foreign policy). However, the naivety of the Nigerian government in the conduct of foreign relations and economic development has constituted a major blow to the ambitions of the founding fathers of the country, which is nevertheless not too late to reverse. Since no regional power on the planet seeks the permission of other regional powers to take a decisive stance on issues that affect its citizens and the country’s image, there is a need to reduce overt accountability and responsibility to international organisations at the expense of citizens and welfare of the country, because, at the end of the day, that is what matters the most and must be treated as such (setting priorities right). Thus, glocalising foreign policy decision-making puts the people first in all endeavours without dissociating the country from the basic degree of interconnectedness and interrelatedness between countries and markets in the international community (Glocal Forum, 2003).

Figure 1, the glocalised concentric model illustrates the movement of ideals (economic, political, socio-cultural, technological) endorsed by globalisation and the flow of ideas from the core—Nigeria—to the rest of the world. Globalisation without localisation will see the core exhibiting the same ideals it absorbed through the process of globalisation while having little to no influence on its output. Whereas, glocalisation allows the core to refine the ideals to suit domestic peculiarities while exporting the same ideals, which in turn, improve the core’s presence and influence in dealing with its environment.

Figure 1. Glocalised concentric model (GCM).

4. Conclusions and recommendations

This paper considered the analysis of concentricism, as portrayed by Nigeria’s foreign policy realities, to bridge the gaps with a more people-focused approach without neglecting international collaborations through the concept of “glocalisation”. Using the qualitative method of analysing data, it found the obvious contradictions that characterised Nigeria’s foreign policy ambitions and the actualities. This is largely due to the subtle influence of the powerful countries within the international system, which some will refer to as neo-imperialism and the unrestrained tainting of Nigerians by other African countries and other non-African countries.

One fundamental question that comes to bear is, can Nigeria regain its economic “status quo ante-independentiam?” That is, the economic strength of the country before independence in 1960, and another is, can the image of the country be redesigned amidst its foreign policy failure popularity? In the right direction, the answers are affirmative while if the country keeps drifting left, the outcome will be disastrous for the country’s future. As suggested by this paper, a foreign policy that is conspicuously people-oriented (citizens’ diplomacy/localised diplomacy) and unrepentantly infused in the global distribution of power, trade and investment (globalised diplomacy) is the way to go, if the country will ever heal from battered past.

As simple as the task of glocalising a country’s foreign policy, its success is attached to a lot of strategic underpinnings with a major tilt towards policy formulation and its implementation. To simplify this; the watchword must be, if these policies will not in the long-term feed the country, secure lives and properties, secure employment and reduce neo-imperial pressures, improve the national standard of living to prevent enormous brain drain, it is not worth giving a try or any policy importance. Internal purging of the naïve and corrupt system is also necessary since individuals will also be at the point of execution, to achieve this internal system sanity. Unanimous sanctions must be agreed upon by the leadership, to be strictly adhered to and punishable if faltered.

In conclusive analysis, the appointment of a medical doctor to the position of Foreign Affairs Minister is incongruous. The Foreign Affairs Ministry must operate with a mandate of effectiveness and efficiency, necessitating the leadership of an individual well versed in the dynamics of international relations and politics. Correspondingly, the Ministerial role concerning Solid Minerals is optimally fulfilled by an accomplished geologist or a proficient specialist in the pertinent domain. It is customary within sound governance paradigms that a Minister of Foreign Affairs possesses a rich tapestry of experience in international relations and political pursuits, both as a field of academic study and as a career trajectory. Professionalism must be enrolled and not eroded in the conduct of state relations within and without territorial boundaries if glocal objectives will ever be accomplished.

Acknowledgments

This is an acknowledgement that this paper is sponsored by Covenant University. I also acknowledge the contribution of Drs. Moses Duruji and Felix Chidozie to this research work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Covenant University.

Notes on contributors

Gideon I. Folorunso

Gideon Ibukuntomiwa Folorunso is a lecturer and researcher at the Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria. With over five years of teaching experience, Gideon has contributed a great deal of intellectual prowess to scholarship. His areas of specialisation includes foreign policy, glocalisation, global health governance and health management. Having lent his voice to discourses on media and migration, among others, he has become quite proficient in the field of international relations.