1. Toast to a Seasoned Diplomat at 70
By
‘Kayode Fayemi
July is turning out to be a season of celebration. Last week, Nigerians and the
world paid tribute to a distinguished man of letters, our own WS on the occasion of his
70th birthday and many came from far and near to celebrate this exemplar of public
service. This week, the diplomatic community, friends and family will gather to celebrate
the 70th birthday of another remarkable man, Ambassador Olu Adeniji, Nigeria’s current
Foreign Minister. Some may wonder what the connection is between the two, since they
appear to be very different in character and temperament. After all, the former is anti-
establishment and very public with his views, while the latter is conventional, self-
effacing, and lives very much in the shadows. My intention here is not to draw forced
comparisons between the two individuals, even if I can see several similarities in the
values they hold dear. That’s a matter for another occasion. This occasion, however,
offers us the opportunity to reflect on the critical role leadership plays in the direction of
foreign policy and the practice of diplomacy.
As a student of Nigeria’s foreign policy and a keen watcher of the ebbs and flow
of leadership in our foreign policy establishment over the past two decades, it is possible
to argue that our foreign policy decisions almost always turn out to be a reflection of the
biases of successive leaders, although these sometimes coincide with the beliefs of the
serving foreign minister. To illustrate this, Professor Ibrahim Gambari’s writings prior to
taking over in the Foreign Ministry in 1984 had concentrated on strengthening the
domestic basis of foreign policy – a kind of ‘charity begins at home’ foreign policy, and
this clearly found favour in a government as insular as the Buhari-Idiagbon regime.
Conversely, Ibrahim Babangida led a larger than life government and anything that could
enhance his profile on the world stage was always welcome, even if he cared little for the
fine details of foreign policy making. His choice of a grand bargainer like Professor
Akinyemi broadly fitted this search for grandeur and profile, given Akinyemi’s erstwhile
predilections with enhancing Nigeria’s profile in the international scene. Hence, he
promoted big initiatives like the Concert of Medium Powers, South Atlantic Treaty
Organisation, the Black Bomb and Technical Aids Corps, as vehicles for proving
Nigeria’s greatness. Of course, Akinyemi’s grand plans soon came unstuck with a leader
who had no core beliefs. His successor, who had no track record in foreign affairs –
displayed an aversion to Akinyemi’s grandiose expression of Nigeria’s exceptionalism
and quickly found recourse in what he nebulously termed ‘economic diplomacy’, at a
time of the infamous structural adjustment programme. Needless to say, all that we did
was pay lip service to economic diplomacy during the Nwachukwu era, if our balance of
trade record was any proof.
The relevant point to make though is that these were foreign ministers with views
and influence in policy-making, not just figureheads. As things began to deteriorate on
the world stage for the military dictatorship in Nigeria, the quality of the foreign
ministers also took a nosedive. Occupants of the office simply became ‘yes-men’ of the
ruling junta, with little or no desire to even promote any core beliefs. The situation
1

2. reached its lowest ebb when Tom Ikimi became the nation’s Foreign Minister. I often
found myself on the opposite side of Tom Ikimi as an opposition activist during this
period, especially at the annual OAU summits and he proved to be the best asset in our
work. His fellow foreign ministers around Africa and the world roundly despised him and
he undermined any effort to reason with the junta he represented, even among reluctant
supporters of the opposition.
Nigeria’s foreign policy establishment is still reeling from the damage Ikimi
inflicted on the service in all his years as Head of the Ministry. Affable, but clearly
lightweight Sule Lamido, who became Foreign Minister in 1999, used the first four years
of our post-military rule tirelessly trying to repair this damage, but his impact was rather
hobbled by his own limited knowledge of the inner workings of the foreign policy
bureaucracy and his inability to overcome the perception of being a square peg in a round
hole, in spite of the best efforts of his image makers to correct this impression. Besides,
influential outsiders always had a direct route to the Presidency and refused to deal with
him, often leaving the impression that he was a mere figurehead. On the few occasions
that I saw him operate at CMAG, ECOWAS and OAU meetings though, he displayed a
genuine mastery of his brief, even if he never quite gained the respect of his colleagues.
In came Olu Adeniji in May 2003 and you may ask, what really has changed? In
assessing past Foreign Ministers above, I reflected on two contradictory tendencies that
seem to govern our foreign policy making in the past years. The first, being the view that
we serve our core values best by perfecting governance at home, thereby serving as an
example and a beacon of hope for the rest of Africa, and the second tendency, being the
belief that our manifest destiny imposes on us an obligation to throw our weight around,
be our brothers’ keepers around Africa at least, if not the rest of the black world. My
reading of Ambassador Adeniji is that he does not belong to either camp of these
contradictory tendencies. Perhaps, having been in the system for the past four decades as
a Foreign Service Officer, he has come to learn that this is a false divide to draw in a
terrain that is not always cut and dried. For him, the motto would appear to be – neither
an isolationist nor an interventionist be! As a noted multi-lateralist, he seems to have
imbibed very well the lesson that Nigeria is safer and stronger when it is respected in
Africa, rather than feared, and that respect can only come from forging strong alliances in
the crucible of diplomatic persuasion under committed Presidential leadership based on
domestic legitimacy, not through hegemonic display of hollow power.
Clearly, President Obasanjo’s commitment to foreign policy is not in doubt and
he has consistently sought to involve himself in the minutiae of foreign policy making in
a manner that is unlikely to change. However, the stature of Ambassador Adeniji and his
deep knowledge of the foreign policy establishment seem to have curbed the
interventionist proclivities of President Obasanjo in the foreign policy bureaucracy. In
turn, the Foreign Minister seemed to have worked out how best to do his job without
losing the benefit that the pan-African, internationalist credentials of the President brings
to bear on foreign affairs. Ambassador Adeniji combines three key attributes that seem to
serve him well in this regard, apart from his unobtrusive approach. He retains an
intellectual curiosity that is uncommon in many seventy year olds, always seeking the
views of younger colleagues on issues. His role in the formation of the African Strategic
Peace Research Group (AFSTRAG) certainly demonstrates this quest for knowledge.
The second is his familiarity with the inner-workings of the Ministry and the
2

3. unquestioning respect of Foreign Service officers that he commands. Third is his vast
network of international contacts, garnered in his many years of service in the United
Nations. Nigeria has clearly benefited from all these attributes.
Ambassador Olu Adeniji is roughly a year old in office, and the jury is certainly
still out on his performance in an institution that has suffered its own share of decadence
under military rule. There can be no doubt however that he has restored a measure of
professionalism over politics in the Ministry – a pre-requisite for ensuring that it’s no
longer business as usual. As evidenced by the 65-45 per cent ratio he achieved in the
choice of our representatives abroad between career and non-career officers, despite
opposition from politicians, he has restored legitimacy to his leadership in the view of
career diplomats. With difficulty, he has also achieved greater coherence between the
Ministry and the Presidency on foreign policy issues, but there is still a disconnection
between our values, interests and pronouncements. There is a lot more needed to
convince Nigerians that our foreign policy truly serves our best interests. As I watched
him direct the affairs of the Executive Council of the 5th Session of the African Union
Summit in Addis Ababa two weeks ago, I was overcome with a rare sense of national
pride and can’t help but recall my encounters with Mr Ikimi in the same forum years
back. Ambassador Adeniji displayed the kind of soft power that is more endearing to all,
even as he acted firmly but sensitively against truculent colleagues like the Foreign
Minister from Gambia and Comrade Stan Mudenge of Zimbabwe.
Yet after seventy years here, and over forty of these in public life and countless
achievements, Ambassador Adeniji is still work in progress, at least until he retires. It is
my hope that the next three years will see him make of our Foreign Ministry a model of
efficiency to the admiration of all around the world. I also hope he would conduct a
review of our foreign policy principles, overhaul the foreign policy bureaucracy and
deepen the connection between our domestic values and our foreign policy
pronouncements. If anyone can do this, Ambassador Adeniji can. As he once told me in a
casual conversation, he does not want to be a good Nigerian diplomat, nor a good African
diplomat. All he wants to be is a good diplomat, period! If you put the same question to
Professor Soyinka and his place in literature, I doubt if the answer would be any
different. Happy Birthday, Sir!
Dr ‘Kayode Fayemi is Director, Centre for Democracy & Development and
Senior Visiting Scholar in African Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA.
3