By Bob MajiriOghene Etemiku
THE leitmotif guiding the theory of comparative advantage is that in a world of competing markets, trade and exchange of goods usually occur. This trade is often beneficial if there are relative differences in the factors of production. In the mid-19th Century, nearly every European country was looking for comparative advantage and for spheres of influence in Africa and elsewhere in the world. Nations were falling over each other because a sphere of influence was a comparative advantage.
Take for instance the case of Nigeria or France or Angola. These countries became whatever they are today because the policies at that time promoted the theory of comparative advantage even though in a crude form.
Europe and the Americas decided to suspend the trade in human beings, not because Granville Sharpe and William Wilberforce experienced a stab of conscience over the trade in slaves but because of the Industrial revolution.
Therefore, slaves made way for machines, and Africa became a place where most of the resources the machines would need came from. Any country then which had any form of control over any part of Africa exercised some form of leverage with the exploitation of the resources of that place. It led to the scramble for and partition of Africa by Germany, France, Britain and Portugal.
But, there were times that some countries decided to remain in a ‘splendid isolation’, and the philosophy behind this policy at that time was because of in-house issues. Britain was famous for that policy. It refrained from alliances and entanglements with the domestic affairs of neighbouring countries until such a time that it became expedient to do so. It was a temporal measure, and it would have completely messed up the British sphere of influence if they continued with it longer than necessary. The British embarked on it, because conditions at home were taking a battering, even though issues of a balance of power among the colonial powers seemed a given.
While some nations successfully adopt the doctrine of splendid isolation as a measure to look inward and address internal problems, others don’t. The purpose of this discussion therefore is to consider if Nigeria should adopt this hibernation mode first before getting entangled with issues in neighbouring states. As things stand now, Nigeria is taking a lead with the resolution of the political impasse generated by the refusal of the Gambian strongman, Yahya Jammeh, to respect the result of that country’s presidential election in which he allegedly lost to his opponent, Adama Mr Barrow.
On the face of it as the undisputed giant of Africa and leading political and economic power bloc, it will behove on Nigeria to take this lead. Nigeria in 2014 was the largest market in Africa, and fluctuates here and there as the largest exporter of crude oil, a position which earns Nigeria a tidy income.
But, there are issues at home here needing Mr. President’s urgent attention. The Nigerian economy is currently experiencing a glut. Oil prices are at an all-time low. Most state governments are unable to pay salaries of workers. There has been a gale of sacks and there is massive hunger in the land, the like that has not been seen in decades. Boko Haram has ravaged the North-East, and monies which were supposed to be used to revamp some parts of that unfortunate region have been allegedly pocketed by officials close to government.
I recall that in the prosecution of the case of the missing or mismanaged $2.1billion put aside to fight Boko Haram, the supposed spender-in-chief took the Federal Government to the ECOWAS court and got judgement that the Federal Government should release him. But Nigeria refused to obey that judgement, in its wisdom.
So, at a time like this, Nigeria would be wise to look in-ward first and put its house in order even as she embarks on this act of chivalrous bravado. In Kaduna recently, what looked like a pogrom took place, and what was the response of our government? Short of being accused of looking the other way, it took our president a long time before he sent what looks like help to Southern Kaduna. If we are unable to take care of events of this scale at home, what gives us the impression that when we get to The Gambia we would be able to bully our way through?
Many people believe that Nigeria has already showed leadership in Africa with its example of accepting defeat after a presidential election. Part of the credit for Ghana following suit by accepting defeat after a presidential election belongs to Nigeria. The incident in The Gambia is an aberrant one. The chap initially accepted defeat but thereafter rescinded unfortunately.
Therefore, what Nigeria should do is this: while pursuing peace and reconciliation in Banjul, we should as well take care of issues at home. Nigeria can expend equivalent energy it has invested with resolving the Gambian imbroglio with revamping the North-East, build alternative energy sources, build capacity and create employment. If we can create employment for our people, and rebuild our economy, stop mismanagement, that will be a clear signal that Nigeria means what she says and says what she means when an issue like The Gambia imbroglio may occur anywhere on the continent.
Etemiku is manager communications, ANEEJ. @bobaneej