Opinions

Nigeria and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict

A few days ago, the world was shocked by the news of Russia invasion of its historical and ethnological neighbour, Ukraine, which Russia in the context of its national interest has described as a mere military operation aimed at demilitarisation and “denazification” of Ukraine. But the doubt and fear that it is more than a military operation have been confirmed with the daily escalation of the imbroglio. On both sides, lives have been lost and in Ukraine, critical infrastructure have been destroyed; ocean of refugees have been created and on Russia, a raft of damaging sanctions have been slammed, and as at now, no one is certain where this conflict will lead the global village to, though essentially a European conflict. This is more sothat, thedominant world opinion led by the USA and its Western allies, has not only projected Russia as the aggressor,but has also condemned Russia for the invasion or war.Indeed at the United Nations General Assembly sitting of March 2,2022,140 members out of 193 rose to condemn Russia while some went further to heap abuses and insults upon Putin, the Russia leader whom the world still needs to genuinely address his concerns for the security of his country,instead of demonizing and ostracizing him if this waris to be tempered. Of the 140 states that thumbprinted to condemn Russia was Nigeria.

The assumption here is that, the voting pattern on that issue must have been informed by the consideration of the national interest of every member that voted or abstained.The pertinent questions are these: was Nigeria’s stance informed by critical consideration of her interest? Or did we just join the bandwagon? While the conflict lasts with all its dynamics what path should Nigeria consistently toe?The answers to these questions form the rest focus of this essay. Before the UNGA’s voting on the conflict, the Nigerian minister of Foreign Affairs,Geoffrey Onyeama, had made the position of Nigeria known at a closed door meeting held separately, with the Russian and Ukrainian ambassadors to Nigeria, Alexi Shebarshin and KirdodaVallerirespectively. Disclosing the highlights of his talks with the two envoys, the minister told the press that, he told the Russian envoy that “the government of Nigeria could not condone the violation of the territorial integrity of a United Nations member state, a country with which Nigeria has diplomatic relations”. He said therefore,” the Nigerian government urged Russia to revert to the status quo before the military action and to prioritise diplomacy and dialogue.” Nigeria, he said, “sympathizes with Ukraine especially because of her concern for safety and evacuation of over 5000 Nigerians studying in Ukraine.” While it is correct to show concern for Nigerians in Ukraine and also Ukrainians, Nigeria should have been more cautious in making the call for a revert to the status quo by Russia. In this delicate conflict in which Russia has raised its security and territorial integrity concerns too, Nigeria, though did not initially condemn Russia, should have maintained a non-aligned posture. This becomes more desirable considering the fact that Nigeria has significant economic and other ties with both countries. For example, in 2021 alone, the value of Russia’s imports to Nigeria was put at N993.38 billion.

The $8 billion Ajaokuta steel complex project on which both countries are working is another instance. Ukraine’s economic and educational ties with Nigeria are equally significant.The value of Nigeria’s imports from Ukraine in2020 was put at $156 million by United Nations COMTRADE. It is this non-aligned posture Brazil has demonstrated when the President of Brazil Bolsonaro, declared that,while he would sue for peace, his country was not willing to cut its ties with Russia because Brazil relies on Russian fertilizer for its agriculture.India has equally been striving to steer a middle course in her national interest. This can give her a better leverage in this situation.In fact, it is a diplomatic tact that must have given Russia the confidence to enjoin India not to hesitate to fill the economic void that will be created by the litany of sanctions imposed on it by America and the West. New Zealand has not also deviated significantly from its independent foreign policy in this conflict. The essential point that is being brought to the fore here is that, in this conflict, we should stand and act according to our national interest. Nigeria’s position should not be dictated by the fear of the United States of America and its European allies. The American Secretary of State, Antony Blinken equating America with the world, has said, “the world is watching which nations stand up for the basic principles of freedom, self determination and sovereignty.”Is this not a subtle coercion of other countries by America to key into its position and values? The truth is that the US and the West are pursuing their national interests.

Nigeria should therefore, in this conflict, be very careful of being swayed by western propaganda and demonization of the Russian president as a dictator, a trend Henry Kissinger has described as alibi for absence of policy. Nigeria should constantly remember that, democratic America has had cause to carry out similar military operations aroundthe globe wherever it perceived that its national interests were in jeopardy. It operations in Libya and Iraq where it had to suspend it values of freedom, sovereignty and self determination for hegemonic interest, readily come to mind. We should not believe that, toeing the path of Europe and America now on this matter will elicit the same zeal of their support for our cause when we are in dire need of it.It will be recalled that, during the Nigerian civil war, the West did not hesitate to disappoint Nigeria in spite of Nigeria’s economic and diplomatic bent towards it.It was indeed the least expected Russia with which Nigeria had no ideological leaning and with which it had slim ties, that offered to sell weapons to Nigeria.

Though the then Russia is defunct, yet this gesture then is sufficient for Nigeria to choose the path of neutrality in the current conflict more so that both the present day Russia and Ukraine were members of that defunct Union of Soviet socialist Republic. The same defunct Russia gave similar succour to the anti- apartheid struggle in South Africa.This possibly explains why the South African Government has chosen to be independent minded in this matter. Nigeria should not join the crusade to turn this conflict to a world war. Rather, our voice should be heard very loud and clear, on the global stage, calling on Europe and America to evolve security arrangement that will address the security concerns of all European states including the worried and warring Russia. Above all, the biting effects of thesanctions andthe economic disruptions the conflict will precipitate globally, should be a lesson for Nigeria to be more serious in the pursuit of self-reliance in her economic development drive