Historicising the unchanging face of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Thrust from 1960 to 2015

Foreign policy is a tool. It is a means to an end, but not the end itself. What a nation gets from foreign policy on the international scene is dependent on its skill in negotiating, applying force and bargaining appropriately. In Nigeria for instance, foreign policy is seen as definitional or doctrine, and as such, using foreign policy thrust to advance the wellbeing of the country remains problematic. Since independence, the guiding principle of Nigeria’s foreign policy thrust has remained a reflection of its perception of the international political system. A constant feature that has remained central to Nigeria’s foreign relations posture has been Africa, with pre-occupations concerning fighting colonialism, then obnoxious apartheid policy in South Africa and the discrimination of black peoples in the African continent and elsewhere in the world. Nigeria’s foreign policy like those of countries all over the world is geared towards attaining the foreign policy objectives of the country’s leadership and its teeming population. Unfortunately, this expectation by the judgement of many informed Nigerians is yet to be fully achieved. The Nigerian Federal Government has often been accused of Big Brotherism and a Father Christmas outlook with little or no reciprocity. It must be noted that states relate globally in the conduct of inter-state relations. In this relationship, the international system provides a potent stage and theatre for Nigeria to come up with defined goals and collective concerns. Despite its clear goals and strong points, there is still a general feeling that Nigeria’s foreign policy plank is punching below its expected weight. Between 1960 and 2015, different foreign policy thrusts have been adopted with little or no reasonable result. This paper therefore examines the various foreign policy thrusts adopted from 1960 to 2015. And attempt to identify reasons why each of these Foreign Policy Planks could not live up to expectation, bring out why each of these foreign policy plank could not live up to expectations. Historical methods will be used in the collection and collation of data.