With China, Trump Can’t Be Aggressive Towards Africa – Says Ambassador Igali

Dr Godknows Igali is a former Nigeria Ambassador to Sweden, Denmark and Norway. He is also the First Vice President of the Academy of International Affairs of Nigeria. In this interview with WALE AKINSELURE, he speaks on the recent exit of Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali from the Economic Community of West African States and how Africa should deal with the leadership of America under President Donald Trump

What are the implications of the recent exit of some Sahelian countries from the ECOWAS for the sub-region and the African continent?

First and foremost, it is their sovereign right to enter into any alliance or any relationship with other countries, whether in the immediate geographical zone of West Africa, on the African continent, or in the world. It is their legitimate right. So they’ve not done anything wrong from that point of view. Nobody can force any country to join a body they don’t want. So, it is an exercise of their sovereign right that they have taken that action. The implications are multifarious. First, and that’s one thing that I want us all to recognise, is that the ECOWAS body, which is going to be 50 years old in May this year, has always allowed for micro-relationships between one, two or three countries. So even by the time ECOWAS was formed, there were other small associations between one or two of the countries and when they became members of ECOWAS, the commission did not give them a precondition to say, ‘don’t have a relationship between yourselves if you want to join ECOWAS’. For example, there was something between Nigeria, Togo, and Ghana, called the Co-Prosperity Zone, which came up. It was informal, very informal. Ghana, Togo, and Nigeria decided to form a kind of pseudo-union. This is as recent as about 25 years ago, when we called it the Co-Prosperity Zone, for us to associate ourselves and deal with issues common to us. So at the beginning of ECOWAS, we had various unions. There was the Union of Canada, the Union of the Francophone countries, and the Union of other countries around the Gambia. And they allowed them to continue. The fact that there is a micro-relationship existing within ECOWAS is not a misnomer. It has existed before and ECOWAS allowed it.

What has changed?

I think in this case, the problem is the circumstances that led to their exit. It’s not a matter of a system remaining inside ECOWAS and associating with themselves. But the situation is that they don’t want to be part of ECOWAS again. I think that’s where it is slightly troubling. Because all the examples I gave are where countries still have their relationships and remain in ECOWAS. For example, look at the European Union. You have the Scandinavian countries, the Nordic countries, where I was once an ambassador. They have their Nordic bodies. Then you also have the lower countries, which are the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein. They have their common group within the European Union. Then you also have the Franco-German situation, where they have their bilateralism, where they meet all the time. So bodies like that always allow micro, smaller groups in between.

However, in this case, it’s just like Britain’s exit from the European Union, where they said, ‘We are going, we are no longer part of you’. This is what has happened in this case. They said, ‘No, we are not part of ECOWAS again’. So it has thrown open a lot of issues. For example, there are ECOWAS protocols on the free movement of goods and the free movement of persons. How does this affect the countries? Today, if you take a flight, you land in, for example, Mali, you don’t need a visa, or you land in Niger Republic, you don’t need a visa, or somebody from Niger, from Burkina Faso, lands in Ghana, he doesn’t need a visa, he just lands there, at least for the first 90 days, and some of them even overstay beyond 90 days. In Nigeria, a lot of people are from Mali, from Burkina Faso. The other time, I had somebody who came to do some work for me. When I asked, he told me that he was from Niger Republic. He dressed like a Nigerian. He has been living in Nigeria for like six years and nobody asked him where.

So there are a lot of issues that have been thrown open from that point of view. Does ECOWAS still give them an exemption in terms of the fact that these are our brothers? Even if they are not part of us, let us have a situation where their citizens can still come in and go out as they like. For us in Nigeria, it means a lot because we are the most egregious of all the people of West Africa. Nigerians move more than any other group of people. So we have to realise it has implications for Nigeria’s relations with these people, these countries. So that’s an issue of concern.

Does their leaving ECOWAS affect bilateralism?

There is no need to cry over spilt milk because the fact that they’ve left ECOWAS does not affect bilateralism. Our bilateral relations with them still exist. They’ve not closed down diplomatic relations with Nigeria. Our ambassadors are still in all these countries. Our embassies are still in these countries. And their embassies are still in Nigeria and other West African countries. So they have left to form their own smaller body. But at the same time, they still maintain their diplomatic relations with us. So I think we have to learn from the British example with the rest of Europe. Here, Britain has left the European Union but British embassies are in all the countries in Europe and these countries have embassies in London. So these three African countries which have formed their own body will continue to keep relationships with us. We have other issues that are common to us like the fight against terror, as almost all these countries are on the frontline of aggression from extremist groups. We have joint stations with them to fight terror and we must continue to do that.

How will ECOWAS sustain the fight against terror with these countries?

ECOWAS has to work out certain protocols with them to continue this fight against terror because it does not affect only them and you have to consider the porous situation of our borders and historical circumstances. Look at Nigeria and Niger, about nine states in Nigeria are such that there is a relationship, an overlap on both sides, between these countries, so we cannot just fold our hands. And even if there is a major disruption of social and political circumstances in those countries, there will be a big spread effect on Nigeria. You remember during the crisis in Chad, Refugees from Chad even moved down to Lagos, to everywhere in Nigeria and the same thing with the political crisis in Niger, where a lot of people from Niger moved into our country. So there are implications in all manners.

But the other matter again, of real strategic implications, is the fact that these countries are breaking up with France. They are saying enough is enough with France. At the same time, the irony is that Nigeria is getting closer and closer to France. So, there may be some trust deficit in terms of their dealing with us. The other implication that we have to be very careful about is the effect on other Francophone countries. Senegal, for example, has now adopted that Wolof should be the official language of the country and not French. Other countries are also throwing a line of becoming cold towards the fraternalistic relationship with France. So, they will always have a level of suspicion that if their big brother, Nigeria, is now getting closer to France, then they have to be careful. But apart from that, could this not create a situation in these other countries that might lead to a rise in nationalism, promoting indigenisation and efforts similar to the current push for indigenous languages and an anti-French cultural revolution? Could this also affect countries like Benin Republic, Togo, and Côte d’Ivoire, especially with political changes and new governments that may adopt this anti-French stance? We could end up in a scenario where more countries seek to leave ECOWAS.

Can the likelihood of more countries leaving ECOWAS be averted?

It’s for a country like Nigeria to support, in a very robust manner, the bilateral relationship with these countries. We are facing a situation where we don’t have ambassadors now. Hopefully, the President will appoint ambassadors soon. If that happens, he must appoint people who have candour, that have respectability, who can have influence, have language capacity, to be able to penetrate the governance in those countries. These three countries must have ambassadors. For example, we have a lot of career ambassadors who have served in these countries, but career, maybe not ambassadors, but senior officers, who know the main people who matter in these countries politically. We have to pick people who influence these countries, who can penetrate and who will continue to influence them to be friendly towards Nigeria, and friendly towards the rest of Africa. In the future, they can change their minds and come back. We must strengthen our bilateral relations with them. We must see how we can help them. Let us not always rely on this theory that these countries are landlocked and they will soon give up. Well, you know, when people have some xenophobic and ultra-nationalistic ideas in their head, ideological pursuits, they become a little bit blind to reason and they are ready to die for what they believe in. So, we have to look at the emotional cycle, the emotional aspect of this breakup. I think the way forward is for ECOWAS and Nigerian-leading ECOWAS, even if President Bola Tinubu finishes his tenure, he will still be the leader of ECOWAS because we are the biggest country, to know that we should continue to strengthen our bilateral relations with these countries. Now, I started with the consular aspect of Nigerians in those countries.

In all these countries, the biggest foreign population is Nigeria. So, Nigeria will need to strengthen our cultural ties, and our consular ties with these countries to protect our citizens there. So, they are not seen as unfriendly aliens, they are seen as friends of their country, even though they left ECOWAS.

Are you canvassing for this posture in the interest of integration, which ECOWAS preaches as one of its principles?

It is not just in the spirit of integration. There are historical, cultural and religious realities. Look at Niger, a lot of people in some states of northern Nigeria and even states have relations with Niger. Some people of Ghana have relations with Burkina Faso. In Mali, a lot of people from Cote d’Ivoire have relations on the other side of Mali. So, you have to bear in mind that there are ties which go beyond this normal ECOWAS integration to the very survival of the people in their historic reality. So, based on this historical realism, we have to know that you cannot stop Burkina Faso, you cannot stop Mali, you cannot stop Niger from being close to the rest of ECOWAS. So, if they now say, we don’t want to be part of this body called ECOWAS, then let us strengthen the bilateral relationship, which is a historical relationship that existed in these countries before 1975 when ECOWAS was created.

There’s always the talk about the influx of nationals from other countries contributing to security issues in Nigeria. Are you not frightened about the security implications, knowing for example the porous, artificial nature of our borders?

Frightened may be a different type of word, but I’m concerned, seriously concerned, in the sense that these countries are our neighbours. The borders are artificial and porous. If you go to the border between, for example, Nigeria and Cameroon, just by way of an example, you have over 20 ethnic groups divided on the two sides. Father this side, mother that side; grandmother this side, grandfather the other side. They have burial barriers here, and groups from neighbouring villages all go across. You go to the border between Nigeria and Chad, there are so many people that the families are divided. These are colonial lines. Go to the border between Nigeria and the Benin Republic. If you go to some part of the Benin Republic, you will not know that you are not in Nigeria. The Yoruba they speak may have a little variant, in terms of dialect, but the same language, the same people, even subjects of the Alaafin of Oyo are still there in the Benin Republic. So that being the case, it is most disturbing to us and should be of concern to all of us that there is insecurity in these countries. I mentioned earlier that there will always be an overlap. There will always be a collateral impact on us for insecurity in these countries. This is why we cannot leave them. Even if they leave ECOWAS, we must, at a bilateral level, maintain that tactical and strategic communication and relationship with them. We must make ourselves known to be interested. We must say to these countries’ ambassadors that they know their onions and who can carry their weight, to be able to protect the interests of Nigeria.

For example, these countries have left ECOWAS but they’ve not left the Lake Chad Basin Commission. Niger belongs to LCBC, along with Chad, Nigeria, Central African Republic, and Cameroon. Look at the Niger Basin Authority. It comprises eight countries and all these countries leaving ECOWAS are members of the Niger Business Authority. So we must all be meeting at Niger Basin Authority meetings every year. They have just left ECOWAS but these bodies still exist. If, for example, you go to LCBC meetings, you will still be dealing with Niger. Or if you go to Niger Basin Authority, you’ll still be dealing with people from Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. So the NBA, all of us are members, and they hold meetings every year. There are technical meetings of experts, and different types of meetings, on hydrology, climate change, the fast human movement, capital and so on. That will still be going on. So it is not the end of life. It is not the end of diplomacy. It is not the end of bilateralism. It is just the fact that they moved away from one particular mother body, which is the ECOWAS. By the way, ECOWAS is one of the last bodies that came up. Niger Basin Authority has been in existence since 1964, the same for LCBC. ECOWAS came on board in 1975. So these other bodies that have existed will continue. The rest of the ECOWAS countries that border these countries must continue to engage them so we don’t isolate them because whatever happens to these countries will affect us. They are our first line of defence. So we cannot do away with them.

Do you think the Alliance of Sahel States might later become a threat to the formidability of the ECOWAS?

I don’t think so. ECOWAS is a solid body. ECOWAS has gone very far. ECOWAS has solid institutions. ECOWAS has crossed the Rubicon, it’s a body that has come to stay and it is of mutual benefit to all its members. So these Sahelian states will not affect the ECOWAS. If it works well, a time may come when the two may reconsider to say let’s come back to have a relationship with ECOWAS. Britain left the European Union and has a lot of treaties with Europe on how to promote different types of relationships. I think ECOWAS is working on all these things now.

Of concern to several Africans is the presidency of Donald Trump. His pronouncements since returning to the White House have raised fears of deportation of Africans living in the US. There are also fears of stifled funds for health. How should African governments deal with these executive orders and pronouncements?

President Trump came to power on an ultra-nationalistic mantra. He made himself clear. First, he said, putting America, or making America great again. That was his mantra. He said America and America alone, and every person who rules a country should place his country first and foremost above every other thing because you are there by the will of the people of your country. I think there’s nothing wrong with that. But the problem is that Trump is ultra-nationalistic. The ultra-nationalistic ideology, ultra-nationalism, has existed for quite some time, about maybe the past 200 years, in Europe, and then it came down to other parts of the world. It is an ideology that is not the best because it tells you that it is we and we alone. No, no country lives in isolation.

No country is Robinson Crusoe’s Island. Every country, one way or the other, depends on others. The world has been made in such a way that all countries of the world depend on each other, maybe that is in tandem with the old theory of the global village, where there’s an interconnection and an intersection between countries. So countries always depend on one another, one way or the other. You produce crude oil, we don’t produce crude oil. We have the power to refine the crude oil or give you the technology to refine it. You produce, maybe, clothes, the other one does not, it needs your clothes. So all countries depend, one way or the other, on others. And that is why ultra-nationalism must always find a balance. Donald Trump has come, he has always been like that, and he made himself very clear on what he was coming to do. You can see that even before he took over power, he knew what he wanted to do. On the first day, he was dishing out executive orders, some that even directly breached the constitution of his country. But I think his lawyers have looked at the loopholes and seen those things that he signed executive orders on. But, as you know, from that first day, there was a flurry of court cases against him, in his own country, because some of the executive orders he signed seemed to have breached the fundamentals of the constitution of his own country. The cases are all in court, and there are already injunctions that have stopped him from proceeding with certain things. Ultra-nationalistic rulers do not always show a good example of themselves. Now, the things Trump has been saying, for example, he changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, or that he’s going to take over Greenland, or he’s going to take over the Panama Canal, and now, the new one, that he’s going to take over Gaza. Israel will fight and fight and take over Gaza, and American troops will resettle the people, maybe in Egypt, maybe in Jordan, or elsewhere. So these are views that are very uncomfortable from the point of view of international law and international peace and security. There are suspicions that some of these things may fundamentally breach international law. But again, there are court cases in his own country, and it is not going to be smooth sailing for him because already, as you know, they worked against Canada, China, and Mexico.

Now, Canada scrapped 25 per cent of duties on him and he is beginning to see the backlash. For the issue of deportation, we are watching. His main target is not Africans. There are people from other sections of the world, particularly Latin America, that cross over illegally, in thousands, every day. Those are the people that concern them most. There are people from other countries, particularly places like Myanmar, India, and some Asian countries coming in very large numbers. Those are the immediate concerns. Africans are less in the spectrum, and they are not the major people that it will affect.

From what we read, it is those people who entered America illegally that will be affected. So, there’s going to be a lot of legal fireworks, because there are people who enter legally but have overstayed. I think that’s the case for most Nigerians. Most Nigerians do not enter America illegally. Most Nigerians enter America legally but have overstayed. Let us see if the situation will affect our people; our government has said it is ready.

The overall policy direction of Trump is that Africans have to sit up. He will want African leaders to sit up and get their acts right. So, I think it’s a wake-up call for us also to think inwards on how we can make our countries better. The other thing is the fact that, like, what to do with USAID. The result that has come out from USAID is showing clearly that USAID may not necessarily have been working in the best interest of our countries.

Agreed, in some cases, they gave us some education support, building democratic structures. But if the figures that are being released by Trump and his people are correct, USAID was also, in many countries, involved in subversive activities, fighting governments to promote homosexuality, fighting governments to promote transgender rights, fighting national NGOs and so on, to fight their governments on areas where they thought that those countries’ policies were as variance with the policies of the American government. I think we should not cry over spilt milk. If it has happened, then we have to sit down and get our acts together, and build our countries. I think that is the language of Trump. Trump knows Nigeria very well. He knows Nigerians are very serious-minded people. Nigerians in America are regarded as the most innovative, most hardworking, most educated foreign population. So we may not have a situation where Nigerians will be a liability and Trump knows that he needs the creativity, industry, and dexterity of Nigerians who, in America, have given good proof of who they are. I think that the few bad elements who are in prisons, who are involved in criminality may be on their way, and a few people who do not have their documents may also be on their way. Generally, I don’t think Trump will adopt an openly aggressive posture towards Nigeria. In Africa, Trump may not be too hostile to all of Sub-Saharan Africa, because he is worried about China and there is no love lost between himself and the Chinese. He knows that China is penetrating Africa, so he may not completely dump Africa. When he settles down after this honeymoon period, he may want to engage African leaders to see how America can have a foothold in Africa. Don’t forget Africa continues to remain the treasure trove of the world – a lot of resources are in Africa – so he may not want to just shut all his doors to Africa.

You said Trump’s stance is a challenge to African leaders. Professor Toyin Falola, in one of his discussion series, talked about the democratic recession in Africa and the tendency for more coups if African leaders do not sit up. How can Africa stop a democratic recession?

Professor Falola is my great friend; he is a historian like myself and one of the leading scholars in history. We have done a few things together and I listened to his podcast where there was a discussion on Trumpism and its impact on Africa. So I agree with him completely. But I think if African leaders smell the coffee, then they will know that Trump may not be too receptive to this whole idea of democratic coups where people go against democratic ethos and culture. I think the American system under Trump may not be too friendly to such moves. So, I think a man like Trump will try to emphasise that there must be democracy in Africa and he may shun African leaders who may want to do that kind of manipulative tendencies. So it is a wake-up call for us to get our acts together.