The pursuit of personal interest is in our nature. Every man for himself; everyone for his pocket, the craze for primitive accumulation is unending. Capitalism best expresses it. The best that’s done in civilised settings is mitigate on the weaker members of the society the impact of our desire to selfishly acquire. It’s done through measures that redistribute perks. This doesn’t appear to seep into the conduct of international relations. On the global stage, it’s self-interest all the way. Here, power informs relations and those who wield it appropriate more of anything. We aggregate and package this as national interest. In its rawest form though, national interest is the self-interest of a group of people within the entity called nation. Against this background, three issues trending on the global stage fascinate me at the moment. They make me wonder if Nigeria is aware that if it isn’t selfish hardly will it take steps and do what’s needed to be a force on the international stage. For something is definitely the opium of nations that determinedly assert themselves and are thereby reckoned with on the global stage – the pursuit of self-interest.
The first of the issues that fascinated me was the World War One that was ongoing this time a century ago. A fallout of it is the geopolitical configuration in the Middle East as we have it today, and the role that nations (such as France, involved a century ago) currently play in finding a multilateral solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The second was that the Americans killed the leader of a terrorist group inside Pakistan days back. But Pakistan, a US ally, said this terrorist leader was its friend. The third issue was that the Americans fought alongside the Kurds against Islamic State in Syria wearing Kurds’ insignia as a mark of their friendship. But Turkey announced that these friends of the US were its enemies, and that as far as it was concerned Kurds were terrorists. The complexity of these relations on the global stage is of interest to me. It shows that each nation selects friends and conducts its affairs based on how its interest is best served. This makes me wonder if Nigeria has really clearly defined its national interest, breaking it into regional, continental and intercontinental pieces, and doggedly pursuing it as most of the nations mentioned do.
I’ve always been of the view that Nigeria is unnecessarily modest in its foreign policy pursuits. I feel we ought to be more assertive. Rather than having an unequivocally clear statement on what our national interest is, we blandly state that Africa is the centre-piece of our foreign policy. I believe we’re saying Africa is our sphere of influence. But this still doesn’t tell anyone anything. In fact, stating that Africa is in our sphere of influence is like the United States of America stating that the western hemisphere is its sphere of influence as a foreign policy objective. Against the background of this bland declaration, we’ve never clearly demonstrated a dogged pursuit of our stated objective even on the continent. Reasons for this include internal and external factors. In the process, we miss out on the benefits. Nations that have consistently pursued their objectives and have benefitted from it do so over several decades. Such nations began to lay the foundation yesterday, making projections for the future, looking out for what should promote their interests economically and in the context of the strategic geopolitical maneuver that’s a permanent feature of international relations.
Take what happened during the WW1 as an example. The United Kingdom and France considered the Ottoman Empire, the most powerful Muslim enclave at the time, a rival. The Sultan that led it had control over much of the areas now known as the Middle East. The Sultan sided with the Germans who were enemies of the UK, France and Russia in the WW1. These three nations banded together, seeking the dissolution of the empire. The battle was still raging when they shared the Middle East among themselves on paper. Why? They wanted to extend their spheres of influence. So, they made their economic and geopolitical calculations and considered that the land areas that each of them got would best serve their selfish self-interests long after the WW1 was over.
In 1916, the UK and France signed the Sykes–Picot Agreement in secret. Russia gave its silent approval because of the territory it would get after the war was over. The negotiations had occurred between November 1915 and March 1916 and it was signed in May 1916. When the Communists took over from the Tsar in Russia in 1917, they publicised the secret agreement, much to the embarrassment of the parties involved. These days, no talks hold about resolving the conflict in the Middle East without reference to the Sykes–Picot Agreement; the UK and France must be involved directly or indirectly. Like they got a share of the African continent during the scramble in the 19th century, both nations also cut slices for themselves in the Middle East. Selfish self-interest drives the urge to acquire more wherever the opportunity exists. The WW1 ended and the UK got areas in the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre with access to the Mediterranean Sea. France got southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia had Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. These powers were to decide what state existed in their areas, and what boundaries. This is why the Palestinians forever remember the UK for allowing the establishment of Israel to happen under its nose in 1948. The Sykes–Picot Agreement itself negated the promises the UK had made to Arabs earlier on for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire. But promises are more than likely to be broken where nations have selfish self-interests to pursue.
In 2016, this same Middle East has continued to be a hotbed of intrigues. The US is now involved. Crude oil, Israel, and the need to maintain regional strategic balance are parts of its interest. The intrigues stretch from this region all the way to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s a delicate game, and fine lines don’t truly exist over what a nation can do and shouldn’t do in the course of protecting its interests. For instance, Pakistan says it combats terrorism and terrorists side by side with the U.S. The U.S hates the Talibans. But Pakistan provides safe havens for the Talibans even though they commit atrocities across the border in Afghanistan. The other day, the U.S killed the most senior Taliban leader on Pakistan’s territory. Yes, we hated terrorists, but our people liked the Talibans so it was in our national interest to be good to the Talibans, a Pakistani official had said after the U.S assassinated the Taliban leader. It’s another lesson in how each nation is for itself and not for others. What obtains in the ongoing Syrian civil war demonstrates same.
Here, the U.S, Russia, Turkey, Syrian rebels, Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, tribal militias, the Kurds (a tribe that wants an independent state from Turkey, Iraq and Syria) are players. Each external party supports local forces in Syria that best serve its interest. NATO, led by the US, has part of its defence shields on Turkish soil. Turkey says it hates terrorists and it supports NATO’s initiatives to defeat them. But it supports any local force across its borders with Syria if this keeps Turkey’s borders safe from attack. The U.S has some of the forces that Turkey supports on its list of terror groups. On its own, the U.S supports local forces in Syria that Turkey considers as terrorists. The Kurds belong in this category. On display here is conflict of interests, driven by selfishness that’s at the root of the conduct of international relations. These nations aren’t shy to make it known they are so driven; what matters to them is that they’re in pursuit of what’s best for their interest. They do because they’re aware that in order to remain a force tomorrow and be able to appropriate everything that’s already scarcely available, they must position themselves today.
PUNCH
END
Be the first to comment