Daily Champion (Lagos)
Rose Moses
16 October 2009
interview
Amb. George A. Obiozor's exploits in the field of international relations both as a scholar and distinguished diplomat has stood him out as a respectable authority in the field.
A former Nigerian ambassador to the United States of America (2004 - 2007), Israel and Cyprus (1999 - 2003), he has served the country in various other capacities, including as special assistant to former President Ibrahim Babangida on international affairs. As a distinguished scholar and researcher, Obiozor has authored eight books and co-authored another eight. His latest publication: "Nigeria and the World, Managing the Politics of Diplomatic Ambivalence Among Nations" due for public presentation next Tuesday in Lagos, is a collection of some of his essays and speeches, whose focal point is the dilemma confronting nations and other diplomatic actors as they walk the rather treacherous terrain of international relations characterized by constant conflicts between morality and exigency, justice and self-interest.
Educated at the University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington State and Columbia University, New York, both in the US, Obiozor was once a visiting professor of international affairs at African Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. He was also an assistant professor of political science at Medgar Evers College, City University of New York and a research fellow with the United Nations Organisation (UNO). Obiozor, who also held the position of the Director-General of the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), has on several occasions, represented the country at international conferences and other diplomatic forums.
In this interview, he gives insight into his latest book as well as the problems and challenges of Nigeria, both locally and as an international actor, arguing that for the country to come out of its current quagmire, the citizens ought to rise and take the necessary redemptive actions.
What's your latest book all about?
It's mainly the major speeches I made as ambassador in the United States, 2004-2007. I thought it wise to put those speeches together because Washington is actually today, what London was in the 19th century and Paris earlier - the centre of diplomacy.
In fact, every country that is there (Washington) presents or defends its case to the world in an American arena and it was really my pleasure and privilege to serve there at that particular time.
To be candid, the United States' position as the reigning world power was made manifest very clearly under the administration of George Bush and what that meant was countries that will count in anything within the international system were countries that had important audience in the United States.
Nigeria under my watch in Washington received such attention and serious audience.
But wasn't George Bush's influence negative to the world?
It depends on how you look at it. The countries that condemn one country over a particular action also take the same action. How do you explain the Russian foreign policy, how do you explain even the British in Falkland, how do you explain France in Algeria?
The whole idea of international politics is what I am trying to make our people understand. It is not a case of moral judgment; it's a case of looking at the motivations that countries take into consideration in the conduct of their foreign relations.
In other words, what I am trying to say very sincerely is that international politics and diplomacy in practice is an issue that is dominated by national interest. The actors may temporize with the truth by playing both sides to their own advantage, they may ooze sympathy for a cause, but each actor balances each position with equally reasonable reservations in the name of diplomacy.
George Bush maintained a strong stand of the United States in the world as the remaining world power, pure and simple...
Do you mean at that time because that doesn't seem to be the position now...
Yes, at that time; it is still the same position. Don't be deceived by atmospherics and symbolic gestures by anybody in power.
The United States is number one and they assert it. That is what George Bush did, Obama will do the same. He may use a different style. There may be personal philosophical inclinations that leaders use to differ from one regime to another, but the national objective that involves national security, national survival, and strategic interest are almost constant in every regime.
Nobody comes to power to surrender national interest and strategic interest of his country in the name of diplomacy. They may play it differently, they may use persuasion rather than coercion, but the goal is to preserve their national, strategic interest, economic interest and of course, national security.
You served in America and say these good things about that country, back home, why does it appear like our leaders don't think of all these national interests?
In fact, the business is not just thinking, they are, they ought to, and they must! No leader comes to power for the country to fall to pieces in his hands. But it depends on the approach; it depends on the ability and availability of resources.
There is no doubt that even in Nigeria, the leaders are concerned with national security, national image abroad, they are concerned with the prosperity, survival and welfare of the people. But the issue that is problematic is how they apply it, how effective are they?
So every country has to make that judgment but in all sincerity, the demands countries make at the international level look similar. All have to do with the national interest of each country and national security. Both are inseparable.
Speak briefly on the book, "Nigeria and the World, Managing the Politics of Diplomatic Ambivalence Among Nations?"
The issue here is that I will like our people to understand that actually, international diplomacy is not a straight forward game, it's not a picnic, and it's not a pleasure journey. It has to do with, to a great extent, where actors sit on the fence most of the time looking for issues that will indeed put their countries at advantage, which also means putting others at disadvantage.
In other words, they are looking for political, economic and strategic interest of their country by persuading others to yield where they will be strengthened. In fact, if necessary, they may enter to promote conflict, even though they had gone in there to stop the conflict. If it is not in their interest to stop it, they will promote it, but they keep appealing to others on the basis of principle, meanwhile; they are pursuing their interest, regardless of what is happening.
In other words, what I have done in the book is to show that in the study of international relations, you have a constant conflict between power and principle. It has been so for a long time, it will continue and it is so today.
This makes international diplomacy a field of outrageous paradox - selective morality and double standards. You must understand what it takes. It requires pragmatism to know when your interest is at stake, what to give in and what to take, when to retreat and when to move forward. So, this is the issue that is involved in the book.
Many of the articles or lectures I gave in America had to do with Nigerian interests within the international system and then promotion of those interests and then advancing the areas of Nigeria's strength in order to invite our host country and the world, as I said of Washington being almost the centre of diplomacy, and till today, it is still the centre of diplomacy in the world... They have influence, major one, America is still the remaining world power, there is no gainsaying that.
Even though they may have their own problems; they still come first before others in military, strategic position in the world, economic position in the world, diplomatic coverage, that is, actually, political diplomatic spread worldwide. Others come after that, whether you are talking of China... China is moving fast and moving well.
Russia is restoring itself after the Soviet's collapse and they are moving now, but the issue remains: who is number one? And the number one doesn't want to become the number two, so there is a resistance from other competitors. This is the issue, that's what makes America strong or great, because they want to keep their position. It may not be dominant position any more, but it is a preeminent position.
Compilation of lectures and speeches as an ambassador makes the sixteenth book that you have written, how do you get the time to write all these?
That is why we are academicians, everything matters. Everything matters for the academician! So put down everything, you record all you do. It was a very trying period in the US, the dynamism of that time was unique.
At home you had President Olusegun Obasanjo who was absolutely interested in foreign affairs and very easily available for contact in terms of what is going on in the world.
And as you know, he is one of the most travelled presidents in the history of Nigeria and he had such credible name recognition worldwide that any ambassador was happy to serve under him.
So was fun serving under Obasanjo?
No doubt, as far as foreign affairs was concerned, it was wonderful, it was great, our country received the appropriate and commensurate attention and I was very happy about it.
When do you plan to launch your new book?
It is being presented on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA). I have some prominent and eminent people that will be there. I have Chief Sunny Odogwu, the Ide Ahaba as chairman, Prince B.B. Apugo, Ochiagha Ibeku as my chief presenter, and Eze Cletus Ilomuanya, who will be father of the day.
The reviewer, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, - a PhD holder from Harvard in Petroleum and Politic! He is a very prominent scholar in private service
What is the message of the book to Nigerians?
What I want them to know is that we shouldn't take the world for granted; we must work hard and earn our greatness. It is not easy; the country needs political courage, not complacency. We need principled voices not sycophancy. In fact, history has clearly shown that ideas move nations and the voices of principled men and women drive national development.
Nigeria is not lacking in human resources, nor in men and women with principled voices. The condition demands an open, inclusive and responsive government anytime, not sometime, but any time in order to make the country dynamic and progressive.
Is that the way forward for Nigeria?
We have a great potential, but it has remained potential for too long; we must actualize the potential. The world will like us to actualize the potentials, and we have the human and natural resources to continue a dynamic march to become major player within the international system. We must be and we deserve to be that.
In fact, in a recent lecture I gave at the Institute of International Affairs, my aim was that we should, as a country, adopt diplomacy of selective engagement, acting quietly when necessary and promote informal diplomacy.
We are not really as embattled outside as we presume, what we need is to act. We should adopt a new and dynamic strategy in our international relations that emphasize bilateral diplomacy. There is no country that doesn't want to deal with Nigeria, no country, from the biggest to the smallest.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 Daily Champion. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
