At a time when governance in Nigeria has become a competition to parrot “transformation” while everything is done to hunker the country backwards; and with the Presidency obsessed with the politics of 2015, the Federal Government is determined to contest election into the UN Security Council for the 2014-2015 session, ostensibly to ensure more visibility in the global body. Coming barely two years after Nigeria vacated the portfolio in 2011, the new campaign, which is personally being championed by President Goodluck Jonathan, is a classic case of misplaced priority and a needless distraction from the task of addressing the country’s numerous and pressing problems. The President needs to reflect on the political and economic challenges facing the nation. The propensity to seek international recognition, while rejecting the pains and sacrifices that must be endured to earn international credibility, contradicts the very essence of statesmanship.
Administration officials argue that the seat will enable Nigeria to play a significant role in global affairs and will be a good compliment to its well-acknowledged peacekeeping role. They claim Council membership will boost Nigeria’s diplomatic importance and give the “Giant of Africa” an invaluable opportunity to make its voice heard on important global issues, while acting as moral check against the bullying attitude of the permanent members. Besides, given the enormous power of the Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, membership will provide opportunities to influence decisions such as the use of sanctions and military force in situations likely to breach international peace and security. They also aver that Council members can extract concessions from the veto powers – USA, Britain, France, Russia and China during important decision-making. Finally, there is this ridiculous assertion that Nigeria’s membership carries the symbolic presence at the table in the likelihood of proposed Security Council reforms, with a permanent seat offered to Africa. Nigeria, they claim will stand in a better position to occupy the seat.
But these descriptive advantages notwithstanding, there are far too many existential challenges that beset Nigeria; from insecurity to mass poverty and critical gaps in social and physical infrastructure. Working to resolve these problems must rank higher on the list of priorities for the administration; than non-permanent membership of the Security Council with no tangible benefits to the citizens, who are wallowing in poverty and misery. In the interest of democracy, a country’s viability for any international contest rests on its domestic stability, including of course, its human rights record. The Boko Haram insurgency and the general insecurity and executive lawlessness in Rivers State, has all but transform Nigeria into a failed state. International perceptions remain a critical vector of consideration before international responsibility is vested on any aspiring nation. Nigeria is sick. A failed bid for the seat will inevitably cause considerable international embarrassment.
Looking back in time, Nigeria has occupied the non-permanent seat four times since joining the UN in 1960. It was in the Security Council in 1966 – 1967, 1978 – 1979, 1994 – 1995 and 2010 – 2011. It exited in 2011 after producing the Council’s president in the person of Prof. Joy Ogwu, Nigeria’s Permanent Representative at the UN. Aspiring to occupy the seat again just two years after would really be ill-advised especially in the light of emerging global issues, including corruption and terrorism; which reflect the deepening crisis and contradictions of the Nigerian state, especially given its grossly apparent declining capacity, if not total failure, to measure up to its responsibilities in meeting these challenges. Assuming arguendo that the seat, if secured, will be a plus for Nigeria’s quest for a permanent seat on the world body’s most powerful organ; of what real significance will this be, besides the fact that Nigeria will now rank highest of African countries that have been elected into the Council?
In a pleasant display of solidarity and consensus, Africa sent an appropriate signal to the world that it could work in unity in pursuing its collective interest, when Nigeria’s bid received the backing of the Executive Council of the African Union (AU) after an earlier endorsement by the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS). This new wave of solidarity is commendable, but www.www.aso.rocks search engine has learnt from Presidential sources that Nigeria has not undertaken any sustained diplomatic effort to win the support of other member states of the UN General Assembly, whose votes will be crucial. The support of other regional groupings such as Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Western Europe and Other Groups (WEOG) has not been harnessed. This is an inauspicious recipe for failure.
Beyond the lip service of administration officials and the touted African solidarity on Nigeria’s candidacy, there are emerging indications that a majority of the Security Council permanent members, notably, the United States, Britain, France and even China will not support Nigeria. This development ought to serve notice to African countries that when the chips are down, the so-called emerging powers would play the imperial cards like past Africa’s colonizers. Nigeria’s bid for the non-permanent Council seat represents for the entire African continent, a symbolic resistance to the dominance of the post-World War II global powers in the UN and a wake-up call for reforms; it in the context of the changing dynamics of global international relations.
However, the task ahead for Africa is enormous because the capacity of African states to mainstream the continent’s interest in the murky waters of international diplomacy is limited. African countries, which previously occupied the non-permanent seat at the Security Council, namely South Africa and Gabon were toothless bulldogs in the face of the determination by France and other western countries to use force and bring about regime change in two African countries, namely, Libya and Cote d’Ivoire. While the race is on, there are pertinent questions to ask because in this bid for Council membership, Nigeria seems hardly to have reflected on the pains and the gains, with virtually nothing to show for its past membership on the Council.
There are more pressing issues dogging the country for anybody to continue dissipating time and energy on the issue. Serious issues of corruption and insecurity militating against the smooth running of the nation are yet to be addressed; the nation still groans under the yoke of mass poverty, inadequate social services and unemployment. Most federal roads are dilapidated just as power supply is epileptic, among a legion of challenges. Those are the issues begging for the President’s attention, and not the misplaced quest for window-dressing membership of the UN Security Council.