| Summary/Abstract |
Nigeria since 1960 when she emerged on the global scene as an independent country has evolved a culture of having representation across the world in the categories of temporary and permanent missions. This she has been doing to give effect to her desire for rapid development and hegemonic role on the African continent. Within a space of twenty years and occasioned by the oil boom that visited the country, a kind of explosion took place in the number of diplomatic missions that she had. This increase necessarily brought about two noticeable major developments; inadequacy in the number of Foreign Service Personnel and the urge to open more missions for more global recognition. In the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, the high number of missions did not generate any debate as the strength of the national economy was capable of carrying the burden associated with the missions.
However, the advent of the Fourth Republic in 1999 has raised the profile of diplomatic missions in the diplomatic circles. The cry for a reduction in the number of missions is loud enough to generate discomfort in the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that prefers reducing the diplomatic staff strength. Another perspective exists that calls for the restructuring of the missions to achieve balance and give adequate recognition to the new dynamics in Nigeria’s external relations. All these dimensions have invariably weakened the consensus necessary to propel the foreign policy to a higher level of delivery.
The thrust of this article is therefore an engagement of the contending views on Nigeria’s diplomatic missions. It holds the view that the raging debate on what the country should do with her high number of diplomatic missions is unhelpful as it has the potential of sweeping crucial issues such as the development of a strategic vision for her foreign policy that derives from her location in the international system, the place foreign policy in governmental affairs, etc., that have produced discernible effects on the country’s foreign policy under the carpet. This is the position taken in the article.
|