The scramble of aspirants to the Nigerian presidency in 2023 has been as notable as it has also been widely depicted as self-demeaning. But arguably, a striking comment on their less than noble trips abroad is in a newspaper cartoon trending on the social media. It shows the presidential candidates on their knees, arms raised in supplication toward a shut front door of Chatham House pleading: ‘‘O Colonial Master, we come seeking for your validation,’’
It is a truism that a picture can tell a story better than a thousand words. So too, this cartoon that captures, most succinctly, an unbecoming rush of these politicians to the citadel of Nigeria’s former coloniser, to explain themselves to ‘the master.’ Notwithstanding the extenuating explanations offered by their apologists, within the specific context of seeking Nigeria’s highest office, these trips are needless and less than graceful.
Commentator on the matter, Yusuf Shehu Usman, in his well articulated excoriation ‘the pilgrimage undertaken by our Presidential candidates to the Chatham House London to present their agenda for Nigeria to the foreign think tank,’ asked: ‘Why is the Chatham House so interested in the politics of Nigeria to the extent every person contesting or even wishing to contest for the Presidency of Nigeria must appear before the Chatham House to present his credentials to a foreign body that cannot influence the outcome of the election in Nigeria?… Is it an extension of neo colonialism on the part of the foreign think tank or a manifestation of inferiority complex and disregard for self-worth on the part of our Politicians that is fueling this JAPA approach to domestic politics?’ He added, in obvious indignation : ‘It’s even more insulting to the collective intelligence of Nigerians that these presidential candidates even consider it as an achievement to be invited or solicit an invitation by the Chatham House London to address the House on their mission and vision for the Nigerian people.’ Mr. Usman concluded: “The Chatham House pilgrimage by our Presidential candidates has no value addition to the domestic electoral worth of any presidential candidate in Nigeria. The votes that they need to win the election are here in Nigeria not in the UK. The candidates should address us through our local national think tank, the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies Kuru (NIPSS).”
What does Chatham House really do that these aspirants find so worth their time and resources? Its website states: ‘‘Our history is one of building understanding between nations and driving world-changing policies. We continue to set a high bar to champion positive solutions.’’ This is quite a laudable mission in a world that since the end of the First World War has been between countries, in and out of war or the threats of it.
Indeed, Chatham House and its purpose were conceived within the context of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference to be ‘an institute for the study of international affairs…to foster mutual understanding between nations and …to propose solutions to the biggest challenges facing the world.’ Then, as now, no one can fault the vision and the mission of the British think-tank to foster a much desirable world peace.
On the one hand, Chatham House and its publication Journal of International Affairs have, over the years, provided a platform for important persons around the world to bare their minds on salient national, regional and global issues. In 1996, President Nelson Mandela addressed the institute on business opportunities in a post-apartheid equitable South Africa. Years earlier, such African leaders as Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda and even nationalist movement leaders, Oliver Tambo and Eduardo Mondlane, are reported to have taken advantage of the Chatham House stage to present their respective cases to the world.
Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara’s article on Fidel Castro’s economic transformation of Cuba was published in a 1964 edition of Chatham House’s journal. Other important dignitaries who have spoken at Chatham House include Mahatma Gandhi in October 1931 when he admonished that ‘the best way of arriving at the solution to any problem, political or social, is for the protagonists of rival views to meet one another and talk things out with sincerity and candour’; David Ben-Gurion in 1945, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1951, King Hussein of Jordan in 1969 when he reportedly warned that Israel has to choose between peace and land but cannot have both; Saudi oil minister Sheik Ahmed Yamani in 1974 when, in the heat of the global oil crisis, he urged objective dialogue between oil consuming and producing nations.
Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan are other leaders that have availed themselves of the Chatham House institute to address pertinent issues. Furthermore, the institute writes on its website that ‘[during] the 1970s Chatham House begins Anglo-Soviet roundtable meetings, an early initiative in track-two diplomacy. The aim (controversial for some) is to develop structures for East-West cooperation by cultivating relations with Soviet reformers,’ and in the 1980’s ‘[following] the discovery of the depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer, Chatham House inaugurates an annual climate change conference to promote international cooperation on this critical global challenge.’
On the other hand, and this is important for Nigeria and developing countries to note, Chatham House has been instrumental to the creation in 1944 of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). It is a product of ‘major contributions from a Chatham House research group led by Paul Rosenstein-Rodam.’ In 1946, staff from the institute joined the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ‘whose missions they helped to design and subsequently draw on a number of institute recommendations.’ The subsequent ‘guidance role’ of both the World Bank and the IMF in the economic fate and misfortune of Nigeria and many other countries around the world is a point to ponder.
Some have justified the presence of Nigeria’s presidential aspirants at Chatham House as a necessary opportunity to speak to the substantial population of Nigerians in Britain in particular, and the foreign countries in general. Others think that the institute provides a respectable platform to speak to the world. Still, others note that the traditional and long relations between Nigeria and Britain is an important reason that persons aspiring to leadership in this country should speak to and cultivate -whatever that means – the support of the latter.
Counter argument against the continued acts of self-abnegation by past, present, and aspiring leaders of Nigeria are as many as they come. Some argue that Britain’s continued interest in Nigeria and in its former colonies have absolutely little to do with goodwill and altruism but everything to do with self-interest and the continued political control and economic exploitation of the human and natural wealth of the country. To this extent, they contend, there is no good reason for the ‘pilgrimage’.
This is indeed a strong argument for the clear and simple reason that, by receiving for safe keeping, or as conduit to other destinations, Britain continues to aid and abet the ‘destruction’, so to speak, of Nigeria by its kleptomaniac public officials. The multidimensional impoverishment of the people of Nigeria, such that their otherwise well-endowed country is, in recent times, ranked as the ‘poverty capital of the world’ is directly linked to the looting in cash and in kind by persons in power of public wealth. It is cheering that Britain, along with parts of the world is by conscious policy detesting any notion of harbouring stolen funds or encouraging corrupt officials in other lands. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that a genuinely friendly country would insist on same standard of behaviour in public office in Nigeria and in Britain, that a ‘civilising’ colonial master would insist that Nigerian officials, on oath to so do, discharge their public duties to their country as honestly as do most British public officials. It is hard to find clear evidence that Britain wields its undeniably huge influence to this urgently needed end. Britain may mouth much indignation and condemnation of the corruption that is killing Nigeria and its people. But we dare to say that it is yet to match these with action that will turn Nigeria’s fortune around for the better.
Indeed, some would go so far as to maintain that Britain is comfortable with a misgoverned, ever- drifting but natural resource-yielding Nigeria. If there is even an iota of truth to this, it would be a terrible pity for both victim and perpetrator.
Do presidential candidates need Chatham House to speak to Nigerians abroad who, by the way, have no voting rights? Of course not. However, because of their connections to international interests that can help improve the country, if aspirants really must leave these shores to meet and interact with fellow Nigerians on their plans and programmes for their country, we should think that the Nigeria embassy is as good a venue as any. Whatever these politicians are paying (if at all) to use the Chatham House facility can more usefully accrue to the purse of the Nigerian mission.
Do Peter Obi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, Bola Tinubu, and the yet to feature Abubakar Atiku need the Chatham House podium to speak to the world on their foreign policy if elected? Absolutely not. As politician Chief Sunny Onuesoke is quoted to say, ‘[we] have similar bodies like Chatham House here in Nigeria. The NIIA and CDS among others.’ So said too NIPSS alumnus, Yusuf Usman who maintained that it is ‘a negation of patriotism to shun what we have built with public resources to go abroad to a similar Institution to project the political mission and vision of persons seeking to occupy the highest political office in Nigeria.’ We cannot agree more.
Tinubu at Chatham House promised to do many things across the sectors to improve the fortune of Nigeria and its people; so did too Obi and Kwakwanso. Incidentally, chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmoud Yakubu was also a guest of the House. Since it is all about here (in Nigeria) and not about there (in Europe), pray, why would these people expend so much time and other resources to do the needless? This strategy defies common sense.
Adekunle Adekoya commented that ‘it has not happened that British politicians seeking to become Prime Ministers come to our Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, to speak on their plans for the British. Neither have the Japanese PM hopefuls, or American presidential aspirants, or leaders of other countries in the world for that matter. Despite the fact that many Indians have lived all of their lives in Nigeria making piles of money for the benefit of their home economy, no Indian PM hopeful has come to Nigeria to speak on his/her political agenda ahead of any election. Why do Nigerian politicians do this?’ He concludes, rightly, that the presidential aspirants ‘should take care of the home front before taking issues out, if truly, charity begins at home. We do not need appearances at foreign think-tanks to deliver political messages.’
The point must also be made that politicians make many promises, in speech and in writing, to the electorate. The largely unfulfilled content of the All Progressives Congress (APC) manifesto of 2015 is a clear case in point. More important, the then presidential candidate of the APC, Muhammadu Buhari, speaking at Chatham House in February 2015, made large promises to restore Nigeria to the path of peace and prosperity if the Nigerian people gave him the job. On the pervasive insecurity in the land, he noted that: ‘‘What has been consistently lacking is the required leadership in our battle against insurgency’ and promised that ‘if I am elected president, the world will have no cause to worry about Nigeria as it has had to recently’…we will be tough on terrorism and tough on its root causes by initiating a comprehensive economic development plan promoting infrastructural development, job creation, agriculture and industry in the affected areas. We will always act on time and not allow problems to irresponsibly fester, and I, Muhammadu Buhari, will always lead from the front and return Nigeria to its leadership role in regional and international efforts to combat terrorism.’’
On corruption, Buhari said ‘‘…there will be no confusion as to where I stand. Corruption will have no place and the corrupt will not be appointed into my administration. First and foremost, we will plug the holes in the budgetary process. Revenue producing entities such as NNPC and Customs and Excise will have one set of books only. Their revenues will be publicly disclosed and regularly audited. The institutions of state dedicated to fighting corruption will be given independence and prosecutorial authority without political interference.’’ On the economy, the aspirant said, ‘‘In the face of dwindling revenues, a good place to start the repositioning of Nigeria’s economy is to swiftly tackle two ills that have ballooned under the present administration: waste and corruption. And in doing this, I will, if elected, lead the way, with the force of personal example.’’ He added: ‘‘In reforming the economy, we will use savings that arise from blocking these leakages and the proceeds recovered from corruption to fund our party’s social investments programmes in education, health, and safety nets such as free school meals for children, emergency public works for unemployed youth and pensions for the elderly.’’ A few months to the end of his two terms (eight years) as chief executive and commander-in-chief, it is regrettable that there is very little to show for these promises made on the ‘global stage’ of Chatham House.
The ‘pilgrimage’ of the presidential aspirants is only the latest in repeated trips to London and other foreign destinations to discuss purely Nigeria matters. In the past months, Nigerian politicians made trips outside the country to hold political meetings of sorts. A disgusted Nigerian Academy of International Affairs (NAIA) said: ‘It is most unfortunate and heartbreaking that some Nigerian leaders had to abandon the shores of this country for the ex-colonialists’ capitals of London and Paris in search of delusion-solutions to Nigeria’s problems.’’ The Guardian condemned such trips in an editorial that in conclusion warned ‘‘those trips abroad to discuss genuine matters of our country must stop forthwith because those who do not have faith in Nigeria to hold and keep their secrets have no business running the affairs of Nigeria. They are advised to seek ‘bread’, ‘glory’ and publicity in other ways’’ This admonition applies too to presidential aspirants who would rather speak on Nigeria’s challenges and their solutions to them from foreign lands to foreigners. There is neither political astuteness nor wisdom in that.
The Guardian
