State Model

State Model

We hope you will find the State Model info you need.

The Nigeria's Interventionist Role In Liberian Crisis: An Examination Of Rpi Model

The Nigeria's Interventionist Role in Liberian Crisis: An Examination of RPI Model

  Introduction To lead a multi–ethnic society while committed to democratic principles or norms is an uphill task. This is because incorporating several ethnic groups into a single political fold means bringing together the basic problem of ethnic conflict as well. Group loyalties dividing a multi – ethnic society can, and do, undermine a common identity, national culture or consensus on democratic values. Any government that could not effectively manage, accommodate and process the divergent, uncoordinated demands placed on it by the environment of conflicting ethnic strata with desired and expected output released to the environment, will be tenaciously experiencing call, clamour and struggle for replacement of existing structures which seem to be conflicting to the demands of the environment.

 

This perpetual clamour for change is a function of dissatisfaction experienced in the area of distribution of resources. It has been carefully noted that inaccessibility to, and uneven distribution of, scarce values is the master-cause of any conflict in any society, meagrely developed, developing or developed societies.

 

The regularity of conflicts in Africa has become one of the distinct characteristics of the continent. The conflicts are usually in the forms of inter-state and intra-state wars. While inter-state wars are usually aroused by border claims due to the presence of economic resources in the disputed areas; ideological differences; and leadership misperception, intra-state instability is often ignited by ethnic rivalry prompted by ethnic or sectional marginalization and exclusion from political power, Osaghae believes that the latter factors are better expressed as intra-elite class rivalry (1996; 98-102).

 

The implications of conflict situations in the region include genocide, wanton destruction of personal assets, infrastructures and refugee crisis. The level of destruction of conflicts in Liberia made external intervention a matter of humanitarian imperative. Since Liberia was undemocratic, it therefore lacked constitutional in–built mechanisms for conflict management. This necessitated external military involvement in resolving the crisis.

 

Nigeria's interventionist role in the Liberian civil war was ideologically understandable within the ECOWAS organisational framework of the standing protocol relating to Mutual Assistance on Defence and in pursuance of her defined foreign policy demands. To understand Nigeria's external involvement demands a critical analysis of the broad objectives of Nigerian foreign policy.

 

Objectives of Nigeria Foreign Policy

Foreign policy according to Reynolds is the "range of actions of government of a state in its relation with other bodies similarly acting on the stage supposedly in order to advance the nation's interest" (1976). Evaluating this definition, it could be deduced that the foreign policy of a state involves not only interactions with other states but also relations with international non-state bodies, both government organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOS). Rosenau sees foreign policy as "the authoritative actions which governments take or are committed to take, in order to preserve the desirable aspects of the international environment or alter its undesirable aspects" (1974:6). Kolawole (1997) also lends his voice when he insists that "a nation's foreign policy orientation is informed by what is considered to be its national interest".

 

Generally, the most potent instrument of gauging a nation's foreign policy is its stated foreign policy objectives. Section 19 of the 1979 Nigerian constitution, saliently articulates its objectives as the defence of the country's sovereignty; independence and territorial integrity; restoration of human dignity to Blackman all over the world; the creation of relevant political and economic conditions in Africa, promotion and improvement of the economic well–being of all Nigerian citizens; and promotion of world peace (Kolawole, 1997).

 

Of principal concern to Nigeria, from these objectives, are well–being of Nigerians; the imperative of justice for all, and a peaceful and secured world in which conflicts are resolved amicably. These aspiration values are prioritized by policy makers into three concentric circles. The narrowness of the circles denotes the nation's security priorities, attitude and responses to foreign policy issues within Africa and the rest of the world. The inner–most circle has Nigeria. Nigeria's neighbours and the West African sub –region occupy the second, while third layers belongs to other states in Africa (Buhari, 1984:2; Ajayi: 1998: 179).

 

This prioritisation implies that defence and security planners must be sensitive to the behaviour, capabilities and plans of countries that fall within these concentric securities boundaries.

 

 

The second circle, which has ECOWAS states, is strategic to Nigeria for a few reasons. One, Nigeria is a member of ECOWAS like Liberia. Therefore whatever happens to any of the members must be of keen interest to Nigeria. Two, it will be dangerous for the country to ignore any major crisis within the sub-region for its spill-over effects. Such effects can include the influx of refugees and the contagious nature of the crisis as events in Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire and Congo Kinshasa have evidently shown. This stems from the ease with which conflict spreads in Africa. Three, any crisis in the sub-region will disrupt the realisation of the integrative economic goals of ECOWAS. Any prolonged conflict in the sub-region will constrain and stiffen the overall economic growth and development of individual state. Lastly, by its position in terms of economic status, military capability, ethnic pluralism, demographic capacity and preponderance, Nigeria occupies a leadership status in the sub-region. This constrains her from being a mere observer of events in the area. An examination of her roles in Liberia and Sierra-Leone will adequately reflect this prioritisation of objectives.   The Historical Survey of Liberian Crisis

One permanent attribute of nearly all African states is their multi-ethnic nature. Just like any other states of the continent, Liberia is noted for her multi-ethnic pluralism. Osaghae noted that Liberia comprises the two broad ethnic formations: the Americo-Liberians and the Natives which consist of ethnic groups like krahn, kpelle, kru, kissi, Bassa and De (1996:10).

 

The Americo-Liberians have been dominating the political sphere since independence in 1847. This is contradictory! One, they constitute just about 2.9% of the 1.5 million of the country's population as computed in 1974 (Osaghae, 1996). Two, they are non-indigenous controlling the political and socio-economic structures of the state, which negates the principles of true independence as affirmed to. Three, Liberia seems to have gained independence since 1847 but her continuous domination by aliens has therefore given way to absolute marginalization of the natives not until the government led by President William Tolbert, an Americo-Liberian was revolted against by Samuel Doe.

 

Doe's government was marked by arbitrariness and despotism to the extent that he later transformed himself to a civilian president in a fraudulent manner in an election that faced stiff opposition. Samuel Doe ruled Liberia in an oppressive manner. The situation became tense and unbearable culminating in civil war led by Charles Taylor in 1989. This marked the beginning of the fratricidal civil war in the country.

 

The war continued and became uncontrollable. "As the war progressed, and hardship increased, discipline broke down among the Armed forces of Liberia and rebel troops which began kidnapping foreign citizens indiscriminately" (Nwolise, 1992:58). "The ensued carnage, destruction to public property and danger posed to foreigners, aroused the attention of the international community" (Ajayi , 1998: 181).

 

Though the civil war took place in Liberia, the neighbouring countries felt the effect. Apart from the fact that foreigners were killed, the influx of refuges to countries like Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria was highly noticeable. It is on this note that one shall look into the "involvement of the input of idea", and the actual participation in the conflict resolution" by Nigeria. 

Nigeria's Full Participation in Resolving the Crisis The conflict in Liberia became worrisome not only to the indigenes (Liberians) but also to the neighbouring nations and the whole continent. The involvement of Nigeria in "input of idea" in resolving the Liberia crisis has its root in the 13th session of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government held on the 28th to 30th May, 1990 at the Gambia. According to Ajayi (1998:183-184), "President Babangida of Nigeria, canvassed for a community standing mediation committee to intervene in the Liberia dispute" the mediation committee comprises Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Lone and Guinea as aspired by the Authority. This marked the birth of the "ECOWAS cease-fire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) of which military contingents from members of the committee were drawn to restore and keep the peace in Liberia" (Ajayi, 1998).   As regards ECOMOG, the aforementioned countries according to their military strength and capability donated solders. This prompted Nigeria to have about 80% of the total composition of ECOMOG (Shanon and Ebrahim, 2000:14-15). Apart from this, the chief of staff, since inception, has been Nigerians. This might account for why Randall Robinson (1996) noted that "Nigeria is a great country, the hope of Africa. If Nigeria works, Africa will get there". The success of ECOMOG in Liberia as led by Nigeria has proved the above postulation.

Thus the actual ‘participation in the conflict resolution' began in August 1990. In the words of the Nigerian ex-president Ibrahim Babangida, "unless arrested, the carnage in that country (Liberia) would spill over to neighbouring countries, leading to external non-African intervention and we thereby decided to send out troops to participate in this laudable peacekeeping mission"(African Guardian, 1991:10).

The ex-president noted that Africa must not wait for the interventionist role from the international peace keeping force from such international organisation like UN before it tackles any problem within the region. Hence it is germane for African leaders to take appropriate initiative on the region's problems.

One notable fact is that all Nigerian leaders usually realize the importance of peace in the sub-region. This was what prompted Babangida's successor, Late General Sani Abacha to continue peace-keeping mission in the sub-region. To him, "the issue of peace in the West African sub-region should supersede the economic interest of individual states as there cannot be economic progress without peace in the region" (West African 1995: 586).

 

The Rationality, Power and Ideology (RPI) Model: A Conceptualisation and Operationalisation

The three key concepts of this model need be conceptualised and operationalised to help situate and put in contextual perspective the theme of the study. Rationality, power and Ideology interact in a complex process to shape public policy in any political system. Although, a lot of approaches have been developed and put forward to understand why government takes option A rather than B. Why it takes more of option B at the expense of option A. For instance, institutional approach was considered problem- explaining and problem-solving with the focus purely on the institutions of government as the major policy makers. Congress, the executive, the courts, and the bureaucracy represent the major institutions that address the issues of public policy. The institutional perspective, however, presents only one perception of policy making. Public policy creation can also be understood and viewed from other frames of reference. The institutional perspectives of policymaking has come of age, it has outgrown its usefulness and needs to be replaced; hence the development and consequent adoption of RPI model of policy making.

 

There are a number of policies made by the government. This, for the convenience and choice of this paper, shall be divided broadly into two, namely; domestic policies and foreign policies. The latter is the focus and concern of this study. The focus of this paper shall therefore be shifted to the three inputs of foreign policy making in Nigeria. There is certain interaction and interconnectedness, in a rather complex manner, among these three inputs in shaping foreign policy in Nigeria. It is germane therefore to define model in order to be familiar with the operational tools of analysis. What is a model?

 

A model has been defined as "an abstraction or representation of political life that serves to: 1. Order and simplify reality. 2. Identify what is significant. 3. Provide meaningful communication. 4. Direct research and, 5. Suggest explanations" (Thomas Dye; 1995; 40-41).  It is also conceptual frameworks or lenses to view a series of events" (Steven G. etals, 1998:11). Generally, a model is a guide to deal with reality. It captures the real features of reality. Model should however not be mistaken for reality. It is not a description of reality but a representation of it. It simplifies reality but reality is more complex. A good model should be consistent in producing results. Since model guides, it is therefore a simpler form of reality.

 

Having conceptualized model, it is important to operationalise the inputs of policymaking vis-à-vis foreign policy in Nigeria. Because of the divergence in foreign policy issues in Nigeria, the interest of this paper is shifted to Nigeria's interventionist role in Liberia through ECOMOG.

 

RPI model departs from the traditional institutional focus as it examines the influences of three policy inputs. RPI model contends that the policy inputs of rationality, power and ideology influence the key actors of Nigeria foreign policy. Unlike institutional model, rationality, Power and ideology are dependent and co-ordinate, they interact with each other in a complex process to impinge on, and exert policy influence.

 

Rationality refers to the ability to assimilate and accept the presence of conflicting factors in a given situation. In a rational context of decision making, what happens is the constant process of moderating the biases and subjective disparity of the decision-maker by the ready introduction of appropriate information and willingness to use such information. Rationality encourages the use of experts who monitor programme effectiveness using rational techniques and make recommendations for periodic changes. Rationality involves objectivity and objectivity connotes the availability and usage of relevant and reliable data in formulating foreign policy.

 

Rationality lays emphasis on objectivity, technicality and cost–effect in defining one's goals. The primary focus is cost and benefit. Corroborating this, a scholar has argued that "calculation and consideration of benefits, as well as costs, are important components of rationality. The rationality input relies heavily on empirical analysis and methodological tools such as statistics, scientific procedures and experimental        designs" (William; 1994). In the view of rationality, policy involves:

(i)                 goal setting

(ii)               Identification and listing of options / alternatives.

(iii)             Evaluation and

(iv)             Best choice

 

Policy can also be studied or viewed from the perspective of power. The key actors in this perspective are various interest groups, citizens, government and influential individuals who exert considerable influence on policy through lobbying, voting, shaping pubic opinion or contributing to political campaigns. Various groups interact in a complex way to influence policy output. Power input is linked to self-        interested actors who wish to acquire personal gains as contrasted to the rationality input that strives to maximize the collective benefit or benefits to all, for a given amount of resources.

 

Policy can also be viewed from the perspective of ideology. Ideology has power to change one's perception of world because of its general acceptance, stability and normative tendencies. Its values have been acquired and accepted as norms which must be adhered to. It emphasises acceptance, faith without proof, belief without evidence. Ideology deals with belief systems that simplify complexity and shape views of how the world works (Steven et als, 1998).

 

A scholar has recaptured the end–product of ideology when he identifies three important senses of ideology "to refer to very specific kinds of beliefs, to refer to beliefs that are in some cases distorted or false and, to refer to any set of beliefs, covering everything from scientific knowledge, to religion, to everyday beliefs about proper conduct, respective of whether such beliefs are true or false "(Nicholas etal; 1988:118). Ideological input is associated with "emotional rewards rather than materials gains and with polarized environments involving many actors engaged in continuous debate" (Nicholas etal; 1988:118).

 

Rationality and the Nigeria's Foreign Policy of Interventionist Role in Liberia through ECOMOG

If certain attributes of rationality include objectivity, technicality, expertise, availability of relevant and reliable data (information), cost–effect, etc, then, the motives behind Nigeria's intervention in Liberia must             reflect these attributes. In evaluating, identifying and understanding this, we shall attempt to look at the practical factors that have motivated Nigeria's intervention. Available evidence proves that Nigeria's intervention is as a result of pursuance of its foreign policy objectives; objectives in this sense connote     ideology rather than rationality because it deals with, and centres on, emotion. Also, scholars have unveiled that salient factors which include "the carnage in the trouble spots is enough to evoke humanitarian feelings, Nigeria has multi-million dollar investments in petroleum and solid minerals in Liberia and president Samuel Doe, at that time, was a close friend of General Babangida, the then head of State" (Ajayi, 1989: 184). The first factor centres on the issue of humanitarianism which is ideological in nature, while the second is on economic/personal gains; the third is on both power and ideology.

 

The second reason being economic (investment) can be elaborated upon and issue of rationality drawn from it. In this regards, it leaves more questions than answers. Is the investment in Liberia commensurate with 1,000 lives that were lost, the psychological effect thereof and an estimated "$8billion" wasted on the prosecution of foreign war that was none of its making?" (Vanguard: 2003:11). What then is rational in the decision of Nigeria to give asylum to Taylor? Were Nigerian people consulted in form of opinion poll before Nigeria troops were sent to Liberia? Is there anything rational for a country that is inundated with, and characterised by, high external debt, poverty, inflation, religious bigotry, hike in petroleum products price, youth restiveness in the Niger Delta etc to scandal such a whopping amount of money in foreign land because of self- styled ideology?

 

We know that rationality has multiple bases (i) technical rationality (ii) economic rationality (iii) legal rationality and, (iv) social rationality. Considering legal rationality, Taylor should have been handed over to the international criminal court for trial. Out of these four multiple bases of rationality, Nigeria's intervention could not be explained suitably if situated within the rationality perspective.

 

Power, Ideology and the Nigeria's Interventionist Role in Liberian Crisis through ECOMOG

It has been saliently discovered that Nigeria has since been using more of power and ideology in its foreign policy approach. It is not that Nigeria has not applied rationality in any of its foreign policy approaches. After all, the cession of some communities and villages to Cameroon over Bakkassi Penisula is a decision that can be explained through legal rationality. But greater percentage of its foreign policy approaches could best be viewed through power and ideology. In talking of power, power can be divided into three viz: ruling class, power elite and pluralism.

 

The adherents of ruling class believe that a policy of government (be it domestic or foreign) is a reflection of the personal idiosyncrasies of the ruling class. The leading statement of such a structure was offered by Gaetano Mosca, who states that all societies break down to two classes: those who rule and those who are ruled. This type of class dominates the institutions of government, owns largest part of country's wealth but has 0.5 to 1.0 percent of population of any country (Steven etal; 1998). Power elite belong to the group that commands the major institutional hierarchies and organizations of modern society: big corporations, government and the military. While pluralism is a situation where power and opportunity of wider participation are dispersed to individual groups.

 

Power emphasizes economic/personal gains while ideology is on emotions. The decision of the president to reinstate Sao Tome president is derived from ideological perspective of foreign policy objectives of Nigeria. Also, the decision to grant asylum to Taylor is explainable and understandable through the ruling class view of power. If it were pluralistic, Nigerian people would have been consulted and their views adopted as final and unchanged.

  Conclusion

Using RPI model, it could be deduced that the intervention stemmed from power and ideology rather than from the perspective of rationality. It is advisable however that Nigeria adopts rationality in its approach on vital foreign policy issues such as the intervention in both Liberia and Sierra Leone because of the economic effect it has on Nigeria's economy and economic development. On Tuesday, 23rd June, 2009, the Nigerian Senate was debating and subsequently passed a request from the President granting soft loan of $10million to Sao Tome at the critical point of economic downturn. Many Nigerians go to bed hungry, high rate of unemployment and deplorable situation of Nigerian roads. Infrastructural facilities are practically lacking. In this situation, granting of loan to another country cannot be said to be rational but a reflection of Nigeria's foreign policy objective and personal relationship which is ideological in nature.

 

It is an indisputable fact that ECOWAS through its military wing – ECOMOG – had once again succeeded in restoring peace to Liberia against all odds. Constitutional or unconstitutional, legal or extralegal, ECOWAS, indeed Nigeria, has gained more recognition in the international system in the area of peace making. But the conviction of this paper is that it is more expedient if not more reasonable to satisfy domestic needs before playing the role of ‘big brother' in Africa. As the position of country and its relevance in the international system is not measured by how many peace keepings you engage in as a country, but your level of technology development, economic viability, military capability, political stability and visionary leadership as well as focussed and supportive citizenry. In order to achieve this, therefore, there should be internal cleansing through reduction in the level of corruption, zero tolerance to poverty, sincerity of purpose on the part of the leadership, infrastructural development and a vibrant electoral system that guarantees one man one vote as well as respect for individual rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Abbah, T. (2003) "The Mess Taylor Left Behind", Punch, April 21.

Ajayi, K. (1998) "Nigeria's Peace Keeping role in Liberia and Sierra Leone" in Kolawole

(ed) Issues in Nigerian government and Politics. Akure, Steebal Publishers.

Amadu, S. (1992) "ECOMOG and Sub-Regional Security in West Africa" in conflict

Trend, Issues 3.

Buhari, M.(1984) "On Nigerian Foreign Policy, National Interest an ECOWAS",

Nigerian Journal of International Affairs, , Vol. 110. No.2.

Fawole, W.F. (1999)  Paranoia, Hostility and Defiance: Gen. Sani Abacha and The ‘New'

Nigeria Foreign Policy. Ile-Ife, Obafemi Awolowo University Press Ltd.

Kolawole, D. (1997) Readings in Political science Ibadan, Dekaal Publishers.

Lamido, S. (2000) "Main Thrust of Nigerian Foreign Policy", National Concord,

February 22.

Nicholas, A. (1988) Dictionary of Sociology. London, Pengium, Stephen H. and Books.

Nwolise, O.B.S (1992) "The Internationalization of the Liberian Crisis and its Effects on

West Africa" in M.A. Vogt etal (eds) The Liberian Crisis and ECOMOG: A Bold

Attempt at Regional Peace Keeping. Gabumo Publishing Co. Ltd.

Obasanjo, O. (2001) Address at the 1999 Annual Patron's Dinner of the Nigerian institute

of International Affairs, Abuja.

Ojo, O. (1990) "Sponsorship and Memebrship of ECOWAS" in Gabriel, O. and

Akindele, R.A. (eds) The structure and Process of Foreign Policy Making and

Implementation in Nigeria, 1960 – 1990. Ibadan, Ventage Pub. Ltd.,

Osaghae, E.E. (1996) Ethnicity, Class and the Struggle for State Power in Liberia. Dakar,

ODESTRIA.

Rosenau, J.  (1974) Comparing Foreign Policies. New York, john Wiley

Steven, G. K. etal (1998) American Public Policy: The Contemporary Agenda New York.

Houghton Mifflin Company Boston.

 

 

 

 

 

 

About the Author

I hold B.Sc in political Science and M.Sc in Public Administration from the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. I am currently a doctoral candidate in the dept of political science, university of ibadan. I lecture at the Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria.

Thanks for looking at our State Model information.