Foreign policy, at its most basic level, is the rational pursuit of national interest in an anarchic international system. Classical realist scholar Hans Morgenthau famously argued that “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” Yet Morgenthau also insisted that statesmen must think in terms of interest defined as power, not personal ambition, ego, or insecurity. When a leader’s insecurities eclipse institutional reasoning, foreign policy becomes erratic, reactive, and vulnerable to manipulation.
This concern is central to any assessment of Bola Tinubu and his management of Nigeria’s foreign policy. From the onset of his administration, it has appeared, at least to many critics, that the president lacks a coherent grasp of what foreign policy entails, let alone a structured understanding of national interest. Rather than articulating a doctrine grounded in Nigeria’s strategic realities, its economy, military capability, regional obligations, and global aspirations, the administration has projected inconsistency and impulsiveness.
Foreign policy is not rhetoric and it is also not posturing or personal branding. It is the disciplined coordination of national capabilities toward clearly defined goals. Yet early signals from this administration suggested a conflation of international politics with transactional politics. The president’s foreign policy team, from the foreign minister to the minister of defense and the national security advisor, has not demonstrated the intellectual cohesion or strategic clarity required to navigate today’s complex global order. Foreign policy establishments are meant to compensate for a leader’s blind spots. When those establishments themselves are deficient, the state drifts.
A second and more delicate handicap lies in the cloud of controversy that has long surrounded the president’s past. Allegations and legal scrutiny in the United States, including a forfeiture case and document disputes, have remained part of the public discourse. While these matters are subject to legal interpretation and political debate, the existence of such controversies inevitably affects diplomatic perception.
In international relations, perception is power. Leaders who enter global arenas under suspicion, fairly or unfairly, carry a reputational burden that constrains bargaining leverage. Foreign counterparts may hesitate to engage deeply or may quietly exploit these vulnerabilities. Thus, reputation is currency in diplomacy. When it is fragile, adversaries test it and use it against victims.
Third, the president’s personal projection as a master strategist and seasoned democrat has arguably created a barrier between him and meaningful policy advice. Effective foreign policy requires humility before complexity. Leaders must listen to diplomats, scholars, intelligence analysts, and career civil servants who understand the historical layers beneath every crisis. Nigeria has no poverty of these. Yet, the autocratic tendencies of the President, even within formally democratic systems, stifle this necessary collegiality.
This became evident in the immediate aftermath of the coup in Niger. As chair of ECOWAS, the president adopted an initially hardline stance, including threats of military intervention. While regional stability is a legitimate concern, foreign policy demands restraint. Military rhetoric without full domestic consensus, logistical preparation, and regional unity ended in strategic overreach. In this instance, public bravado appeared to outpace institutional groundwork. The episode exposed tensions within Nigeria’s diversities and revealed that foreign policy decisions were not anchored in broad based consideration of the countries diversity.
In foreign policy matters, even highly centralized regimes like North Korea rely on collegiate systems. Despite its authoritarian image, its foreign policy machinery involves party organs, military commissions, and diplomatic cadres operating within a structured hierarchy. Decision making may be opaque, but it is institutionalized. Agencies, individuals, and party structures align to present unified strategic positions. No serious regime, democratic or autocratic, survives long by making foreign policy a one man show.
Another problematic interpretation shaping this administration’s approach appears to be the notion that international influence can be secured through wetting the ground, lavish inducements or transactional patronage. While wealth can lubricate diplomacy, such tactics are sustainable only for states with enormous surplus capital and diversified economies, such as Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates. These countries have transformed resource wealth into strategic leverage.
Nigeria’s economic reality is starkly different. Years of structural mismanagement, debt pressures, and institutional decay have constrained its fiscal space. A state struggling with domestic insecurity, inflation, and infrastructure deficits cannot effectively purchase geopolitical relevance. Attempting to mimic petro wealth diplomacy without petro wealth discipline only exposes weakness. Foreign policy grounded in such illusion rather than capacity will naturally invite exploitation.
Compounding these challenges is the ideological thinness of the ruling All Progressives Congress. Since its ascent to power under Muhammadu Buhari, the party has not articulated a robust foreign policy philosophy in its manifestos. There is little evidence of sustained party level engagement with global strategy, regional integration, or multilateral diplomacy. Without ideological grounding, foreign policy becomes reactive. Under Buhari, Nigeria oscillated between rhetorical non alignment and practical inertia. What rescued Buhari government was his background in the business a military Head of State. Under Tinubu, the drift appears to have intensified into improvisation.
The consequences are clearly visible. Nigeria today is a geopolitical playground where larger powers test influence. External actors court Abuja not out of respect for coherent strategy but because uncertainty creates openings. Trump’s unkind statements about Nigeria are not coincidence. When a state signals such inconsistencies, foreign powers probe for leverage through security partnerships, economic agreements, or diplomatic alignments that will not serve Nigeria’s long term interests.
History provides sobering lessons. Leaders plagued by insecurity have often overcompensated in ways that endangered sovereignty. In pre-war Ethiopia, Emperor Haile Selassie’s initial miscalculations and diplomatic hesitations contributed to vulnerability before Italian aggression. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s personal bravado and misreading of international signals before invading Kuwait invited devastating consequences which were the corollary for the eventual invasion of his country and execution a decade later. In each case, personal insecurities, fear of appearing weak, obsession with prestige, distrust of advisors, distorted national calculation.
Foreign policy cannot be a theater for ego. It must be a disciplined extension of national capability. Nigeria’s strength historically lay in its professional diplomatic corps, its peacekeeping record, and its leadership in African multilateralism. Those assets require cultivation, not sidelining. Agencies must coordinate. Political parties must debate doctrines. Scholars must inform strategy. Civil society must scrutinize decisions. A president, no matter how confident, must situate himself within that ecosystem.
When insecurity drives foreign policy, three patterns emerge: overstatement of capacity, hostility toward dissenting expertise, and susceptibility to foreign manipulation. Critics argue that all three patterns are visible today. If Nigeria is to reclaim strategic coherence, it must return to first principles, define national interest clearly, align means with ends, and institutionalize decision making beyond personality.
Morgenthau warned that the moral duty of statesmanship is prudence, and prudence requires self-awareness. Without this, foreign policy becomes an extension of personal battles rather than a shield for collective security.
Nigeria deserves better than the current improvisation. It deserves a foreign policy rooted in clarity, institutional depth, and sober assessment of our national power constituents. Whether this administration can transcend these identified insecurities remains an open question, but the stakes for the nation’s global standing could not be higher.
