Tel: 803 474 7898
Email: totalpolitics@ymail.com
The evolving dynamics of global power politics continue to remind medium and regional powers that the international system is neither sentimental nor symmetrical. Recent events surrounding a forceful United States operation in Venezuela—culminating in the apprehension of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife—have once again laid bare an uncomfortable but enduring reality: power, not moral argument alone, still defines the outer limits of global order. In such moments, the true test of leadership is not rhetorical defiance but strategic judgment.
It is against this backdrop that the arguments advanced in a recent essay by Bishop C. Johnson deserves careful and respectful appraisal. His central thesis—that nations like Nigeria – must respond to the assertiveness of great powers with calm restraint, professionalism, and realism—resonates deeply. This essay revisits and expands that argument, not by repetition, but by reinforcing its logic within Nigeria’s current political and diplomatic circumstances.
Let me state clearly at the outset: this appraisal does not arise from blind allegiance to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor from the opportunistic praise that too often accompanies proximity to power. I am not a habitual admirer of President Tinubu in the sense of literal syncophantic tethering to the wind vane of political survival. Patriotism, however, imposes a higher obligation—to recognize sound leadership when it manifests, especially in moments of national consequence. On the management of Nigeria’s external relations in a tense and unpredictable global climate, President Tinubu has, by all fair standards, demonstrated competence, composure, and resilience.
The Venezuelan episode served as a cautionary tale for all states that still assume international law operates in pristine abstraction from power. The United States’ ability to execute a complex overseas operation, neutralize logistical and security barriers, and subsequently shape the global narrative underscores a fundamental truth: when great powers perceive core interests to be at stake, legal niceties often follow action rather than restrain it. This is not unique to the United States; history offers parallel examples in Ukraine, Gaza, and elsewhere.
For Nigeria, whose geopolitical relevance is significant but whose hard power remains limited, the temptation to respond with loud moral outrage would have been understandable—but dangerously imprudent. Some domestic commentators urged precisely such a path, framing diplomacy as a shouting contest and sovereignty as a matter of verbal bravado. That approach may satisfy populist instincts, but it rarely advances national interest.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration chose a different and wiser course: quiet diplomacy, calibrated engagement, and institutional coordination. This was not submission; it was strategic self-awareness. Sovereignty is not defended by megaphones but by outcomes—by preserving room for manoeuvre, maintaining partnerships, and preventing avoidable escalation.
A key stabilizing influence in this approach has been the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu. With deep operational experience and an acute understanding of security cooperation, Ribadu helped ensure that Nigeria’s engagement with the United States remained focused on mutually defined priorities, particularly counterterrorism. Nigeria neither relinquished control of its internal security nor allowed itself to become a rhetorical battleground. That balance reflects seasoned judgment and institutional sobriety.
Similarly, the role of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, deserves recognition. In a global climate increasingly polluted by performative diplomacy, Tuggar reaffirmed the value of professionalism, restraint, and disciplined communication. Nigeria’s positions were articulated firmly but calmly; red lines were communicated without provocation. This is the language of serious statecraft, not social media theatrics.
Beyond these institutional actors, however, it would be historically incomplete—and morally unjust—to omit the unforgettable contributions of Dame Bianca Ojukwu to Nigeria’s diplomatic navigation during these troubled times. Her role in shuttle diplomacy, often understated but profoundly consequential, exemplifies the quiet effectiveness that defines successful diplomacy.
Dame Bianca Ojukwu rose to the occasion with grace, credibility, and uncommon tact. Drawing on her extensive diplomatic experience, international networks, and personal gravitas, she helped soften hard edges, open informal channels, and humanize Nigeria’s positions in ways formal communiqués often cannot In moments of uncertainty, it is often the discreet envoy—the trusted voice behind closed doors—who makes de-escalation possible.
Her interventions were not loud, theatrical, or self-promotional. They were deliberate, timely, and stabilizing. At a time when missteps could have compounded Nigeria’s challenges, her shuttle diplomacy contributed to easing tensions, fostering understanding, and reinforcing Nigeria’s image as a serious and responsible actor on the international stage. For this, she deserves not only commendation but sincere national gratitude—big hugs and kudos for answering the call of duty when it mattered most.
The contrast between this calibre of diplomacy and the incendiary rhetoric of figures such as Femi Fani-Kayode (FFK) could not be more stark. FFK’s penchant for intemperate language, especially when directed at powerful international actors, reflects a troubling misunderstanding of how global politics actually works. More concerning still is the notion—circulating in public discourse—of rewarding such rhetorical recklessness with ambassadorial consideration.
In an era where Nigeria’s external environment is increasingly uncertain and its diplomatic margins delicate, elevating combative populists to sensitive international roles would send precisely the wrong signal. It risks projecting Nigeria as impulsive rather than strategic. President Tinubu would be better advised to keep such figures at arm’s length, even if only temporarily, while the nation navigates these fragile geopolitical waters. Statesmanship sometimes requires resisting the temptation to reward noise over nuance.
Indeed, the coast is far from clear for Nigeria. Global alignments are shifting, great-power competition is intensifying, and economic vulnerabilities persist. In such circumstances, calm leadership is not optional; it is existential. Managing the Nigeria–United States relationship demands patience, strategic empathy, and an unbroken focus on national interest—not ideological exhibitionism.
Yet external diplomacy alone is insufficient. Domestic peace remains the indispensable anchor of foreign policy credibility. President Tinubu must, therefore, continue to reassure Nigerians that internal stability, democratic legitimacy, and social cohesion remain paramount. Central to this reassurance is the integrity of the electoral process. Nigerians must be confident that future elections will be credible, transparent, and competitive.
This is not merely a democratic ideal; it is a peace mechanism. When citizens believe that their votes matter and that political change is attainable through lawful means, the incentive for unrest diminishes. The maximization of electoral opportunity is, in itself, a stabilizing force—a pathway toward Nigeria’s highest democratic potential and a catalyst for revolutionary development rooted in consent rather than coercion.
A nation that manages its internal democracy well strengthens its external negotiating position. Credibility abroad is inseparable from legitimacy at home. Thus, calm foreign policy, domestic peace, and electoral integrity form a single strategic continuum.
In sum, the handling of recent diplomatic sensitivities by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his key officials—supported by the invaluable behind-the-scenes efforts of Dame Bianca Ojukwu—reflects an understanding of the moment Nigeria inhabits: its limits, its leverage, and its responsibilities. Restraint was not a sign of weakness; it was an expression of strategic maturity. In a world where power often speaks loudly, Nigeria chose to act wisely.
That choice deserves acknowledgment—not as partisan praise, but as an act of informed patriotism. When leadership rises to the occasion, even its critics must say so.
Strategic Restraint, Responsible Leadership, and the Burden of Statecraft in an Unsettled WorldBy Dr. Clem Aguiyi
Leave a Reply