Towards a Peaceful World

By By George Obiozor
Sunday, June 15, 2003

With the United States survival as the only super-power, uni-polarism is only a notion more in speculation than in reality. Instead of the international system shifting from bi-polarity to uni-polarity the present reality reflects more of polycentrism- many centres of powers and increased level of general insecurity and vulnerability of many nations within the international system

John Lewis Gaddis in his book Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States, said "It is difficult to conceive of a more significant topic in the 20th century American diplomacy than the United States 'relations with the Soviet Union.""

As a student during the Cold War years, I want to state that international politics in all its ramifications- military/ strategic, political, economic and socio-cultural or psychological dimension - reached their highest points of relevance in the relationship, rivalries, or competitions between the United States and the former Soviet Union.

At the level of cooperation between the two super-powers they looked apparently destined to fulfill Alexis de Tocqueville's prophecy of "two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing towards the same goal: Russians and Anglo-Americans. Each seems called upon by some secret design of providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."

On the other hand also, their conflicts according to De Tocqueville had their roots in the "suicidal instincts of the Europeans, whose wars opened opportunities for the simultaneous extension of influence by the United States and the Soviet Union."

Thus, as a student I became fascinated and mesmerised by the realism in the interplay in the Russian-American relations, especially in the foreign policies of the two countries, and their relative juxtapositions between interests and ideologies. But most importantly I developed a great passion for the analysis of how their relative application of their respective interests and ideologies influence their attitude towards the Third World in general and Africa and Nigeria in particular.

The analysis of those years came out with the verdict that where some countries were rigid, hostile and uncooperative, the Russians were flexible and accommodating especially when these issues had to do with anti-colonialism, de-colonisation or self-determination. Consequently, the then Soviet Union became the irrefutable, the inevitable, but the controversial godfather of freedom fighters in Africa, a situation which earned the Russians a special honour and solidarity with the Africans since the 1950s and 1960s.

Hence, even though the two super-powers acted from realistic considerations of power, for the then Soviet Union, power and influence were regarded as their priority while economic and other interests were of secondary consideration, and for the other countries the general perception was that the lure of trade and other economic interests seemed to be the crucial determining factor in their competition and conflicts with the then Soviet Union in Africa.

These positive perceptions became the basis of a tradition of good relations between Russia and African nationalist leaders and African states, which Nigeria enjoyed during the Civil War, 1967-1970, and continues to enjoy till today with the Russian Federation.

Nigeria and Russia share a common destiny in their inevitable foreign policy orientations. Both must be peace-makers in their sub-regions and their regions, and both must recognise the imperatives of leadership and positive contributions to peace in their respective regions.

Consequently, in the last Nigeria-Russian dialogue held in Moscow between the African Institute of the Russian Academy and the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA in May, 1997, the topic discussed and analysed was "Nigeria and Russia in a Changing World Order."

That seminar dwelt on such topical issues as the "new global" realities, particularly the apparent and formal termination of the de-colonisation process at least on the political level, and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War era.

Other issues were the threatened possible emergence of a uni-polar world, a phenomenon that would end the nearly 50 years of "balance of Power" and balance of Terror" between the United States and the then Soviet Union. That era in retrospect made peaceful co-existence possible and international peace and security better guaranteed as the super-powers were able to checkmate each other through either use of reciprocal violence, or peaceful negotiations.

Today, however, with the United States survival as the only super-power, uni-polarism is only a notion more in speculation than in reality. Instead of the international system shifting from bi-polarity to uni-polarity the present reality reflects more of polycentrism- many centres of powers and increased level of general insecurity and vulnerability of many nations within the international system.

Consequently, the notion of uni-polarity is effectively challenged by the presence of such countries like the Russian Federation, Germany, Japan, China and even France. Indeed, it will be the height of political and diplomatic miscalculation to mistake preponderance of power as monopoly of power, for that could have catastrophic consequences in an international system that is very prone to violence.

Ironically, today neither the United States nor the rest of the world is safer in this New World Order. There is mutual vulnerability for all the nations of the world, big or small. No country including the United States in spite of its spectacular achievements in the past 50 years-bigger, richer and dominant is totally self- sufficient in all things. The rich also cry, in fact, self- sufficiency is out, mutual vulnerability, interdependence and a compelling necessity for nations to cooperate and be more tolerant are the imperative features of the New World Order.

It is indeed the responsibility of all countries to ensure that world affairs are run in a manner consistent with the collective will and in full recognition of the relative diffuseness of power and influence as well as the diversity of our planet earth on the basis of race, religion, language, demography, and geography. The post-Cold War world order is, in our view, not a uni-polar and cannot become a uni-polar world. Indeed, instead of uni-polarity, what is emerging, as I said earlier, is polycentrism or many centres of power attempting to redesign a role for themselves in new World Order that is still in a state of flux and untidy.

It is true that a lot has changed as a result of the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. However, we believe and it also is true that the Russian Federation has enormous influence and sufficient resources- human and material - to continue to be supportive of the Third World countries and to continue to champion some causes vital to protect the national independence, integrity and human dignity of the Third World countries in general and African countries in particular.

As of today and in the case of Nigeria, bilateral relations are very cordial and cooperative. Yet I observe that at the multilateral level, the Russian Federation finds it difficult to give sufficient support to Nigeria. It would be great if the bilateral goodwill is extended to the multilateral level. For instance, the United Nations Security Council ought to include at least one black nation. We know that Nigeria is most sufficiently qualified and should get that permanent seat. One out of every six black persons in the world is a Nigerian, and one out of every five black persons in Africa is a Nigerian. That is it for population qualification. And in addition, Nigeria's role in peace-keeping, anti-apartheid struggle, de-colonisation, and economic development in Africa cannot be doubted. Consequently, the Russian Federation should come out and support Nigeria in the United Nations and other international fora.

A situation where only the Peoples Republic of China is left to support and uphold the cause of Third World countries looks a little disturbing. It is still in the national interest of the Russian Federation to champion the cause of the Third World countries.

Consequently, one of the most important lessons which, in our views should inform the conduct of world affairs in the post-Cold War era is to devote most of our resources and energy towards economic and social development of our peoples. What this means therefore, for Nigeria is that our attitude in the post-Cold War era should neither be looking for the victor or the vanquished nor of a winner takes all or loser be damned, but of a collective realisation that the world would be a happier place if Cold War military budgets were now devoted to more peaceful, development-oriented purposes. In other words, our preoccupation in the post-Cold War world should be with strengthening the peace dividend and ensuring that all countries and peoples benefit from it.

Furthermore, even as we search individually and collectively for a redefinition of our roles in a changing world, we need to keep in mind the fact that many of the structures of inequality which propelled the quest in the 1960s and 1970s for a new international economic and information order are still with us, begging to be resolved. Countries such Russia, even as they grapple with the talk of national reconstruction, have a responsibility to ensure that these north-south questions are not forgotten. Many friends of Russia in Africa, Asia and Latin America have a stake in the resolution of global economic and cultural inequalities and will expect and count on Russia's support and cooperation.

Let us dwell a bit on the pressures for democratisation that have been felt all over the world. Nigeria and Russia have not been immune to the pressures for democratisation and have strived to manage them for the betterment of our peoples. Given this fact, it is equally in our interest that every step should be taken to democratise the conduct of international affairs and the management of global political and economic system. This calls for vision and courage, it calls for a collective will to improve the world and Nigeria stands ready to be part of that endeavour and process.

Nigeria's transition programme to re-establish a democratic and civilian-led government is now irreversible. The present administration is dedicated and determined that this process is carried to a successful conclusion.

George Obiozor is the former director-general of Nigeria Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, and now Nigeria's ambassador to Israel