Sovereignty and Travel Advisory in Diplomatic Practice: UK-US Pattern and Nigeria’s Policy of Self-deceit
Bola A. Akinterinwa
The conduct and management of international relations, and particularly of international questions, is largely defined by the de jure principle of national sovereignty, and by the de facto rule of protection of the national interest, which all the Member States of the international community consider as a desideratum. Even when agreements are negotiated and done, defence of the national sovereignty and national interest is always given the priority of priorities during the processes of negotiation and in its final outcome.
True, sovereignty is synonymous with self-governing authority. The authority is referred to as supreme power to act independently of other sovereign States. Sovereignty became popular in international relations since 1800 and its meaning varies according to its source. For instance, in the context of a federal government, sovereign power is a resultant from the people because power belongs to the people who only delegates the power during elections or otherwise. Unlike a Federal Government, a state government necessarily derives its own sovereign power from the Federal Government, while tribal or local governments derive its own sovereignty from the State Government. This is what obtains in the US.
So, local and state sovereignties are operational within the framework of a Federal Government, while federal or national sovereignty is applicable beyond the international frontiers of a country. It is within this international domain that the issuance of a travel advisory should be discussed and understood. In this regard, every sovereign State has the supreme power to issue a travel advisory to its citizens, even to other sovereign States, especially if they have cooperation agreements. Collective security compels such travel advisory at times.
The problem, however, is always the mania of issuance of a travel advisory. Should a sovereign State make public a travel advisory? Should the advisory be channelled through another sovereign state? Should the consent of a receiving state, like Nigeria, be sought before an accredited diplomatic mission in Nigeria, like that of the United States or the United Kingdom, can issue a travel advisory? Should Nigerians be told publicly or otherwise about the issuance of a travel advisory meant stricto sensu for American citizens?
In discussing the mania of US-UK travel advisories what is the situation with travel advisories in international relations? In which way is the situation different in their application from that in Nigeria? Why the issuance of any travel advisory, and particularly by the United States and the United Kingdom? How should the recipients of an advisory respond? Is Nigeria not engaging in a policy of recklessness and self-deceit in handling the US-UK travel advisory?
Travel Advisory in Diplomatic Practice
In international diplomatic practice, the issuance of a travel advisory is always a very welcome development for three main reasons. First, it compels the people to stop slumbering and sleeping by making them to quickly prepare to face the threats of insecurity, and particularly in ensuring safety of lives and property. For instance, when the United States and the United Kingdom issued their travel advisories, it took very little time for the various special security agents to flood Abuja in preparation to respond to whatever challenges. The response of the security agents was apparently devoid of politicisation. That, in itself is quite commendable because the advisory was not taken with kid gloves.
Secondly, a travel advisory enables self-reassessment. For instance, how do we explain the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom saw threats that are forthcoming and the Nigerian government’s security agents did not see them? In other words, has Nigeria the same intelligence and military capability as the United States and the United Kingdom? More importantly, did the United States and the United Kingdom have ulterior motives with the issuance of their travel advisories? Can the advisories be aimed at fomenting trouble in Nigeria or making life and political governance more difficult for the APC government with the ultimate objective of influencing the 2023 general elections in Nigeria?
Thirdly, the issuance of a travel advisory is a potent tool of controlling extremist terror in the management of criminal violence in international relations. Issuance of a travel advisory is a manifestation of the belief that prevention is always better than cure. It is about forewarning and this is consistent with the Yoruba proverbial saying that ‘ogun a gbo tele kin pa aro tio ba gbon.’ This simply means that ‘a war that is foretold does not kill any lame person.’ When a lame person who cannot trek not to talk of running is told that a war is forthcoming, the expectation for the lame person is to begin to seek an immediate escape route. This is the precise situation of every travel advisory issued by the United States and the United Kingdom which is always aimed at ensuring legitimate self-defence. Both countries have been victims of various terrorist attacks which have compelled them to adopt policies of non-sleep, and monitoring actively every terrorist movement, from which other sovereign States do also benefit.
It is useful to briefly recall some of the terrorist attacks against the United States in order to underscore the rationales for its issuance of travel advisories. The US Ambassador, Adolph Dubs was kidnapped by Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan. In an attempt by the Afghan government to rescue the ambassador during a military assault on the terrorists, Ambassador Adolph Dubs was inadvertently killed on 14th February, 1979. This was not terroristic.
However, on 4th November, 1979, more than sixty people, including diplomatic agents, were held hostage for 444 days at the US Embassy in Iran. The experience was very harrowing as a diplomatic mission is internationally considered a sovereign institution. An Embassy enjoys the principle of ex-territoriality, implying that the US Embassy, like any other one, is another State in another sovereign host country. Consequently, terrorists not only to violate the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which unconditionally protect all diplomatic missions, and for that matter, but also prevent the embassy from operating for 444 days. This situation cannot but continue to compel any reasonable government to sleep with one eye closed and one eye open.
It was the case of a bomb explosion on 18th April, 1983 in Lebanon. A bomb, placed under a US diplomatic vehicle and detonated from outside the embassy, almost destroyed the entire embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people, including seventeen Americans, were killed. This was cruelty and a Cold War between Islamist terrorists and the United States. On July 8, 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States was again victim of brutal terrorist attacks. Not less than 224 people died. More than 5,000 people were wounded. Twelve Americans were seriously wounded in Nairobi, Kenya. If people complain about difficulties in accessing any US embassy, the reasons are not far-fetched: the foregoing brutalities partly explain the US self-precautionary measures.
Iraq was the next place of terrorist attack on the US embassy on 29th January, 2005. Terrorists threw rocket bombs to the US embassy in Bagdad and killed two Americans. The following year, on 2nd March, 2006, it was another suicide terrorist attack, with the use of car bombs in Karachi, Pakistan near the US Consulate. The suicide bomb attack, which took place two days before the official visit of President George W. Bush, left five people dead, including one American diplomat. One American life was also lost during the terrorist attack in Yemen on US Embassy in Sanaa on 17th September, 2008. Fifteen others also lost their lives.
On 3rd September, 2012 in Pakistan, there was again another terrorist attack on US diplomatic vehicle which is supposed to be internationally protected. It was a suicide bombing in Peshawar because of the showing of a film considered to be anti-Islam or insulting to Islam.
And perhaps more recently, on 3rd May , 2022, the African Union base in Somalia was not only attacked with threats of expelling its Special Representative, but also on 30th October, 2022 the French Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs said there was an attack in Mogadishu, Somalia, in which several people were killed and wounded. With travel advisories and announcements on terrorist activities in other countries, should one learn from them or simply seek to engage in politics of self-deceit?
The foregoing is just the recalling of some of the attacks on US diplomatic missions. We have explicated assaults against US diplomatic and other missions in greater detail elsewhere (vide Bola A. Akinterinwa, “Les attaques contre les missions diplomatiques et consulaires et le droit international, Paris: Institute of Advanced International Studies of the University of Paris 2, 1979). The famous and most wicked 9/11 terrorist attacks speak volumes. They not only go beyond ordinary attacks on diplomatic missions but compel a determination to always want to carry the war on terror to the door steps of the Islamist terrorists wherever they may be found. The United States cannot be consistently targeted for terrorist attacks and the US government will be expected not to know its onions in alerting its citizens of potential threats to their lives. The policy stand of the United States is to prevent the importation of terror to the home land by fighting it outside of the United States.
The experience of the United Kingdom is not in any way different except in the frequency of attacks. The British Embassy was burnt on 31 October 1946 in Porta Pia in Rome. Two timed explosives were put in a suitcase and planted at the frontage of the British Embassy by the Irgun (Zionist paramilitary organisation) in protest against British prevention of illegal Jewish immigration into the Mandatory Palestine. Ambassador Noel Charles was the direct target.
On 29 November, 2011, the British Embassy in Iran was attacked in a mob action in Iran. There were protests in the British chancery and diplomatic residences in Jomhouri, Tehran. The mob ransacked offices and burnt one diplomatic building. 20 Iranian protesters were arrested and three British officials suffered injuries. On 2nd February, 1972, the British embassy in Dublin was burnt by a large and angry crowd: ‘three coffins draped in black were placed on the embassy steps, two Union Jacks were burned, and an effigy of a British Soldier was set on fire.’ In 2003, the British Embassy was also victim of several attacks. Even though terrorist attacks had been more on diplomatic missions than on the killing of diplomatic agents, the United Kingdom has also been compelled in the mania of the United States to alert all its citizens wherever they may be. It is against this background that the UK’s reduction of services and travel advisory on 24 October 2022 should be understood.
US-UK Travel Advisory and Nigerian Reaction
Terrorism became more critical following the end of World War II to the extent that the Soviet Union took note of the US support for the Soviet Union’s suggestion that a conference of experts be convened in Geneva to interrogate how to avoid being cut unawares as a result of ‘surprise attacks.’ In this regard, General Charles de Gaulle had on 24 September, 1958 written to UK’s Macmillan and US Eisenhower on the need for the institution of a political consultation mechanism among the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
The consultation was to take place within the framework of the NATO or outside of it (vide Lazar Focsaneanu et al, “Chronologie des faits internationaux d’ordre juridique,” Annuaire Français de Droit International, 1959, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1959, p. 903). In spite of the consultations that ensued thereafter, surprise attacks have remained a major challenge without solution in international relations, and hence the need to always issue travel alerts when necessary.
On 25 October 2022, the US Department of State authorised the departure of non-emergency US government employees and family members from Abuja due to perceived heightened risk of terrorist attacks. In the eyes of the United States, Nigeria has become a country of very violent crimes, ranging from armed robbery, assault, carjacking, kidnapping on interstate roads to hostage taking, banditry, low-level armed militancy in southern Nigeria, and rape.
On 27 October, 2022 another order requiring the family members of US government employees to depart Abuja for the same reasons of heightened threats of terrorist attacks was issued.
Without doubt, US travel advisory is generally about cautionary restriction whenever there are perceived threats to the lives and property of Americans. For instance, Americans were given an advisory on movement and travel following Russian special military operation in Ukraine. They were told not to travel to Ukraine and for those already living there, to travel out if it is only safe to do so. The advisory was issued against the background of Russian strikes that were threatening Ukraine’s active nuclear power plants, especially that of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
In the context of Nigeria, advice was given against travelling to Abuja due to a very high threat of terrorist attacks and kidnapping, volatile security situation, possible violent civil unrest and high levels of violent crimes. More specifically, advice was given not to travel to some States, including Adamawa, Anambra, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Borno, Cross Rivers, Delta, Gombe, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Plateau, Rivers, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara, allegedly because of ‘very high threat of terrorist attack, the threat of kidnapping, robbery and armed attacks and the volatile security situation.’
In reaction to the US-UK travel advisory, PMB gave a good and mature reply by asking Nigerians to be more alert and not to panic, as a ‘travel advice does not constitute imminent attack on Abuja (see thisdaylive.com) and that terror is not peculiar to Nigeria. As PMB put it, ‘attacks are being foiled. Security agents are proactively rooting out threats to keep citizens safe. Much of their work is unseen and necessarily confidential. Nigerians’ safety remains the highest priority of government. Security services are working around the clock to keep harm at bay.’
This PMB’s attitudinal disposition to the diplomatic alerts was quite befitting but the pronouncements of the government officials showed a myopic understanding of the functions of travel advisories. Rather than take advantage of the alerts to seek a more cooperative attitude in the containment of the threats, government officials displayed hostility and unnecessary sovereign arrogance. While, on the one hand, PMB told Nigerians not to panic, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) advised the alert sponsors to tell the police and not the public, on the other hand. What does this reply mean? Why conflicting policy pronouncements? Should the Americans and the British talk directly to the IGP? Will doing so not raise interference in the domestic affairs of Nigeria, contrary to Article 2(7) of the UN Charter?
Perhaps most disturbingly, in the eyes of Nigeria’s Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, the US-UK threats were fake. He asked the US and the UK what they expected Nigerians to do. In fact, he said that the advisories have only terrorised Nigerians and caused panic and that Nigeria’s sovereignty would continue to be defended. He therefore dismissed and condemned the advisories, in spite of the fact that more embassies similarly pointed to the dangers ahead, by talking about elevated risks of terror.
Denmark, for instance, was reported to have told its citizens in Nigeria as follows: ‘there are currently reports of increased risk of terrorist attacks, particularly in Abuja. Exercise caution, especially in and around Abuja. Follow developments via the local media, authorities or your hotel. Always follow the instructions of the local authorities.’ What is important about the advice of the Danish Embassy is the point that the Danish people should follow the development via the local media, meaning that listening to the Minister of Information and Culture may not be good enough. Denmark does not therefore appear to believe Nigeria’s Minister of Information and Culture.
Finland identified social unrest as the most likely security risk in Nigeria in light of the forthcoming 2023 elections. Consequently, the Finnish Embassy asked its citizens to take extra care and to avoid crowds as the elections may generate the unexpected. This again means that Finland believes more in the US-UK travel advisory rather than gambling with what appears to be more of a Lai Mohammedan propaganda.
What is again significant to note here is that several diplomatic missions in Nigeria took note of the US-UK travel alerts. They did believe in the spirit of the US-UK alert but the Nigerian government officials do not believe in the alerts and their updates. They kept assuring Nigerians of normalcy and yet the PMB government is incapable of containing the increasing use of terror. This is the saddest aspect of the advisory saga.
If Denmark, Bulgaria, Austria, Finland, Hungary, and Ireland which immediately asked all its citizens ‘present in Abuja to register their presence with the Embassy of Ireland’ can embark on precautionary measures, it simply means that the US-UK alerts cannot but have some elements of truth and danger. In fact, the seriousness of purpose of the alerts can first be gleaned from the US instruction that all the non-essential members of staff of the US Embassy should quickly vacate the embassy. The essential staff who are still required to stay behind cannot but be the intelligence officers who are to continue to observe the situational reality on the ground and report for further policy advice.
Most unfortunately, the understanding of US-UK concerns about the implications of terrorism in Nigeria for Europe and America is limited. On 13 December 2011, Boko haramism was identified as an emerging major threat to the US Homeland. Lai Mohammed who is defending Nigeria’s sovereignty easily forgets that on 29 August, 2018 Nigeria and the UK stepped up their cooperation to end Boko haram insurgency, meaning that the UK is still needed in combatting insecurity. A former UK Prime Minister publicly told the whole world at a UN General Assembly that there was a terrorist training school in Abuja. What has happened to the observation and the school? Foreigners cannot believe in the capacity of the PMB government to suppress terror because terrorists are in all facets of the polity. Former President Goodluck Jonathan already admitted that there were Boko Haramists in his Government. General Theophilus not only told Nigerians that the Nigerian military are aiding and abetting terror but also to prepare to take arms and defend themselves against terrorists. Thus, why should any reasonable government not first alert its citizens? Why should a foreign government first inform its host government when the perception of insecurity handling is, at best, very controversial? Comparing insecurity in Nigeria with school shootings in the US is self-deceit, because insecurity in Nigeria can precipitate national disintegration, while it cannot happen in the US. Purporting to have parity with US-UK warning alert mechanisms is unnecessary self-glorification that is more terroristic than the threats of the insurgents. PMB should sustain his more mature diplomatic approach and stop the uncouth pronouncements of his representatives, in light of the insecurity in Northwest and IPOB that are currently threatening the 2023 elections.
