Part of the enduring damage to the culture of public debate over the years is the hijack of the civic space by the uninformed who peddle false narratives with astonishing vehemence.
Sadly, today, the malady seems to have assumed epidemic proportion. I blame this partly on the permissivenesses of the social media which enables idle minds, mischief-makers and paid mercenaries to pollute the air with what is now generally known as “fake news” or “alternative facts” easily.
A clear illustration of this syndrome can be seen in a very sensational report syndicated in some online publications few days ago which blatantly twisted facts in Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs under Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar in particular and misrepresented the reality of Nigeria’s foreign service in general.
Laden with inconsistencies and contradictions, the report came short of sounding the death knell on Nigeria’s foreign policy, accusing the Foreign Minister of the Tinubu administration of junketing the world instead of “staying in office in Abuja”.
The author of the report want the Foreign Minister crucified for what they described as the “diplomatic fiasco” in Niger due to the inability of ECOWAS to rein in the coupists in Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali after suspending them and later readmitting them. Just as they blame Tuggar for the non-appointment of substantive ambassadors to Nigeria’s missions abroad since those serving were recalled last year.
Perhaps, before going ahead to address those stated allegations, it may help to understand the undercurrents. Well, it is open secret that there has been a “clash of interests” in the Foreign Ministry in recent times which has necessitated the ruffling of some feathers as well as the suspension of some personnel over alleged unethical conduct. Just as it is also a known fact that, in the eyes of right-thinking Nigerians, the Foreign Minister has exhibited thorough professionalism by insisting that due process be followed to establish the truth or otherwise over a serious allegation leveled against a powerful officer in the ministry. Rather than allow the matter be swept under the carpet in the name of “espirit de corps”.
It is, therefore, not unexpected that those affected or afraid of scrutiny or searchlights would try to fight back. As they say, corruption always fights back when challenged. Well, a fight-back is quite legitimate in the contestation of interests in a given polity. But in this particular instance, the least one expected is fidelity to facts and not recourse to character assassination of a damn good career diplomat who has added value to Nigeria’s foreign service over the years.
I say this from the insight of a retired ambassador who, therefore, has more than a passing interest in the defence of national interest in the foreign service.
Having followed Tuggar’s career in the foreign service, I can vouch that he is one of Nigeria’s very best among his generation. His last posting before being appointed by President Bola Tinubu last year was Germany which, in world diplomacy, is classified as a Grade A country. Germany is undoubtedly the biggest economy in Europe. You don’t send a nonentity to such province.
To begin with, let us even pretend that the referenced report is not a hatchet job sponsored by some wounded interests. By suggesting at all that the Foreign Minister should “siddon put” in Abuja and be “treating files”, the author of the report only betrayed an abysmally poor understanding of diplomacy and the job of a Foreign Minister for that matter. Seriously? But there is clearly a big distinction between Minister of Interior and Foreign Minister. The former fits the expectations of the author expressed in that report. In any case, only the thoroughly uninformed will assume that the Foreign Minster could have embarked on foreign shuttles without informing the President and securing his approval. Again, the author seems unaware that part of the duties of the Minister of Foreign Affairs is to represent the President or the Vice President on occasions as may be asked.
The allegations that the Ministry is understaffed, polarised by internal rivalry and that the Minister’s absence creates a vacuum are mere gossips because Ministries have established bureaucratic system headed by the Minister who executes the policies and decisions of the President by delegating responsibilities.
Like him or not, one of the most influential figures in world diplomacy in the last century is America’s Henry Kissinger. While contextualizing the dynamics of foreign relations in contemporary age, this is what he has to say:
“The revolutionary character of our age can be summed up in three general statements: (a) the number of participants in the international order has increased and their nature has altered; (b) their technical ability to affect each other has vastly grown; (c) the scope of their purposes has expanded.”
Against this backdrop, the germane question then: is it by staying put in Abuja that these critics expect Ambassador Tuggar to best serve Nigeria’s foreign policy interest?
Look at the case of visa ban on Nigerians by the UAE. This was inherited from the last administration. But through constructive engagement spearheaded by the Foreign Ministry under Tuggar, the matter has now been resolved with the authorities in Dubai opening their doors for Nigerians to visit again.
The issue of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso should be situated within the broader context of regional politics involving the heads of state of ECOWAS. Nigeria’s intervention in Niger following the coup by General Abdourahamane Tchiana was not unilateral. It was a collective decision of ECOWAS leaders who appointed President Tinubu as their chairman. It is, therefore, uninformed to think that a Foreign Minister in Nigeria could have stood in President Tinubu’s way in the form of writing a counter advisory.
Again, while it is desirable that Nigeria should, by now, have filled all the ambassadorial vacancies abroad, the truth of the matter is that Tinubu administration inherited a bad economy that has limited its ability to mobilize resources to fund the foreign missions sufficiently. Even under the Buhari administration, the common lamentation among Nigerian ambassadors then was paucity of funds such that, in some cases, ambassadors had difficulty paying their children’s school fees due to poor or delayed salaries. So, getting the ambassadors recalled last year was partly an economic decision. To get their replacements back to all the missions abroad will certainly cost tens of million of dollars. I think President Tinubu is quietly scratching his head at the moment, thinking how to mobilize funds to do the needful in this regard.
It is, therefore, most mischievous and fallacious to blame the delay on Ambassador Tuggar.
* Dr. John Adekunle, a retired Ambassador, wrote from Lagos.
