On December 31, 2024, Nnamdi Obasi, Senior Adviser on Nigeria at the International Crisis Group, shared an important report with me via email. Titled Restoring Nigeria’s Leadership for Regional Peace and Security and published on December 11, 2024, by the International Crisis Group, the report meticulously examines the decline of Nigeria’s diplomatic influence over the past fifteen years. Until last week, I had not had the opportunity to study it thoroughly, but today, I feel compelled to share the valuable insights I have gleaned from it.
The authors deserve commendation for producing a well-researched and comprehensive analysis of Nigeria’s dwindling diplomatic clout. Their work is a timely wake-up call for policymakers, foreign policy analysts, and Nigerians at large. However, while the report convincingly diagnoses the problem and prescribes reasonable solutions, it occasionally underestimates the complexity of Nigeria’s domestic challenges, which significantly constrain its external engagements. A pragmatic assessment demands that we balance optimism with realism in envisioning Nigeria’s return to regional leadership.
For decades, Nigeria was the towering giant of African diplomacy. From the 1960s through the early 2000s, it played a critical role in Africa’s decolonization, peacekeeping, and regional security. Nigeria was instrumental in the liberation struggles of Angola, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. In the 1990s, it spearheaded the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), leading successful peacekeeping operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo was a linchpin in the transformation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) into the African Union (AU) in 2002.
Yet, as the report details, that era of unchallenged dominance has ended. Nigeria’s influence has diminished due to a combination of distracted leadership, economic decline, and rising internal security threats. Political instability at home has sapped its energy for robust foreign engagement. Unlike in the past, when Nigeria took bold, decisive actions in continental affairs, it has become hesitant and reactionary. Its struggles at home—Boko Haram insurgency, herder-farmer clashes, separatist agitations, and banditry—have drained resources and attention from regional diplomacy.
The report astutely highlights how President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, despite occasional efforts, presided over a period of noticeable retreat from Nigeria’s traditional leadership role. Buhari’s introverted foreign policy and limited diplomatic outreach left a vacuum that was quickly filled by other African powers, notably South Africa, Egypt, and Rwanda. Moreover, his decision to unilaterally close Nigeria’s borders with Benin and Niger in 2019, ostensibly to curb smuggling, backfired, creating diplomatic tensions and weakening trust in Nigeria’s regional commitments.
President Bola Tinubu’s administration, according to the report, has made some efforts to reclaim Nigeria’s lost influence. Tinubu’s declaration that Nigeria was “back” as a leader in African affairs was a welcome rhetorical shift, but actions must match words. His handling of the Niger coup in July 2023 was a crucial test. As ECOWAS chairperson, he pushed for strong sanctions and even threatened military intervention. This aggressive posture, however, proved counterproductive, alienating Niger and prompting Burkina Faso and Mali to formally exit ECOWAS to form the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). Instead of restoring Nigeria’s influence, the miscalculated response further weakened ECOWAS and Nigeria’s standing within it.
The report rightfully calls for a recalibration of Nigeria’s foreign policy machinery. Nigeria cannot afford to operate with an outdated diplomatic playbook. To reclaim its leadership, Abuja must reinvest in its foreign policy institutions, prioritize diplomatic finesse over military threats, and repair strained relations with neighbouring states. This requires not just visionary leadership but also significant financial and human resource commitments. Currently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is underfunded and poorly staffed, limiting its ability to project Nigeria’s interests effectively. Many Nigerian embassies abroad struggle with unpaid salaries and operational costs, an embarrassment for a country that once commanded continental respect.
ECOWAS, once a pillar of Nigeria’s regional leadership, also needs reform. The report suggests that Nigeria should spearhead efforts to make ECOWAS more effective in conflict resolution and economic integration. Nigeria’s leadership of ECOWAS has often been viewed as domineering rather than cooperative. Going forward, Abuja must engage smaller West African nations in a more consultative manner, fostering collective decision-making rather than dictating terms. The recent fracture caused by the Niger crisis underscores the urgent need for ECOWAS to rethink its approach to democratic governance and military interventions.
Another crucial recommendation in the report is for Nigeria to reassert itself within the AU. Historically, Nigeria played a key role in shaping the AU’s peace and security agenda. However, its engagement with the continental body has waned. The appointment of a strong, capable ambassador to the AU is essential. Nigeria should also deepen its participation in AU-led initiatives, particularly in mediation efforts for conflicts in Sudan, the Sahel, and the Horn of Africa. This will require not only diplomatic commitment but also financial contributions, as many AU programs are hindered by inadequate funding.
Beyond institutional reforms, the report underscores the need for Nigeria to reframe its foreign policy narrative. The “giant of Africa” image must be backed by strategic diplomacy, economic strength, and military credibility. Nigeria should draw lessons from its past diplomatic triumphs and failures. A compelling example is the way former leaders like Murtala Mohammed and Obasanjo projected Nigeria as a moral force in Africa, championing liberation struggles and standing up to external powers when necessary. This is in stark contrast to the recent timidity in international forums, where Nigeria often appears unsure of its stance on major global issues.
However, the report could have delved deeper into the global geopolitical context. Africa’s diplomatic landscape is evolving, with major powers like China, Russia, and the United States competing for influence. Nigeria’s strategic positioning in this new order requires more than just a return to old habits; it needs innovative diplomacy that aligns with contemporary realities. For instance, how does Nigeria position itself in the unfolding US-China rivalry in Africa? How can it leverage its vast diaspora, particularly in the UK and US, for economic and diplomatic gains? These questions deserve more attention.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s path to reclaiming its diplomatic stature is not a short one. It requires deliberate effort, strategic thinking, and a commitment to long-term foreign policy goals. The International Crisis Group’s report is a valuable contribution to this discourse, shedding light on Nigeria’s diplomatic decline and outlining a roadmap for revival. While some of its recommendations may seem optimistic given the current economic and security challenges, they are nonetheless necessary if Nigeria hopes to lead again in African and global affairs.
The challenge for President Tinubu and future administrations is clear: Nigeria must move beyond rhetoric and implement tangible reforms in its foreign policy apparatus. The world is watching, and Africa is waiting. Will Nigeria rise to the occasion, or will it remain a shadow of its former self? Time, and action, will tell.
