Again, Humility in Diplomacy: Olusegun Obasanjo’s Letter and Donald Trump’s Indictment
Bola A. Akinterinwa
The past one week witnessed many interesting issues in humility, particularly in diplomacy. Vie international of last Sunday focused on humility in diplomacy and terrible things in righteousness. Emphasis was placed on the implications of what the Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Geoffrey Onyeama, reportedly said: ‘scholars and others in international relations and foreign affairs… expect us as a big country to be banging the tables hard and throwing our weight around… Humility in diplomacy is very apt, especially in the context of what is happening globally. Yes, you might be big, but ultimately humility is very important… You very often find that humility can actually help you to be more successful and achieve those interests rather than throwing your weight around being a bully and being extravagantly proud.’
While admitting this statement, we noted that the understanding of it should be in context in light of the fact that humility does not exist per se in diplomacy or in international relations, based on the rule of sovereign equality. It only exists as a matter of choice at the level of individual stakeholders and citizen diplomacy and not necessarily at the level of inter-state diplomacy. The letter reportedly written by Chief Olusegun Okikiola Obasanjo, GCFR, former military and elected president of Nigeria, to the Chief Clerk of the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EH, regarding Senator Ike Ekweremadu, on the one hand, and the indictment of former US President, Donald Trump, for various criminal falsification of official records, tax evasion, removal of classified official documents from office, etc. on the other, are good manifestations of humility and non-humility in diplomacy either unofficial or officious.
The example of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s letter falls within the framework of citizen diplomacy. It is humility-driven, while that of Donald Trump’s indictment is officious diplomacy and bullying-driven. Both cases are quite interesting because of their implications for foreign policy. Let us put the understanding of Chief Obasanjo’s letter and the indictment of former President Donald Trump in context before explicating the ramifications of humility in diplomacy and the foreign policy implications.
Obasanjo’s Letter and Trump’s Indictment
The letter, dated April 3, 2023 and printed on a personal letter head in which titles, honours and other manifestations of jots of braggadocio are completely far-fetched, is a good reflection of humility per excellence. True, humility has been variously defined: ‘humility is nothing but the disappearance of self in the vision that God is all,’ ‘the quality of having a modest or low view of one’s importance; ‘it is a virtue which centres on low self-pre-occupation, or unwillingness to put one-self forward, so it is in many religious and philosophical traditions; the quality of having a modest, or a low view of one’s importance;’ and more importantly, ‘humility is a heart attitude of lowliness, meekness, and absence of self,’ according to the Holy Bible. Chief Obasanjo’s letter, as made known to the public, is humility personified.
As noted above, the letter was addressed to the Chief Clerk of a court in London and not officially done to the government of the UK. In public administration and diplomacy, all official or formal letters always begin with ‘Dear Sir’ and always concluded with ‘yours faithfully.’ All other expressions, like ‘Dear Professor,’ ‘Dear Sister,’ Dear friend, My Darling, etc. are considered officious or unofficial. Chief Obasanjo’s letter not only says ‘Dear Chief Clerk,’ and ‘My dear Chief Clerk’, but is also concluded with ‘Yours sincerely.’ The name of the Chief Clerk is not mentioned, meaning that the letter has a quasi-official status. It is officious. Humility is therefore not yet at the level of official diplomacy but at the level of citizen of Nigeria and the citizen of another country, United Kingdom. This is the type of citizen diplomacy that Chief Ojo Maduekwe, CFR, advocated when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs but which was not given the official attention required to promote it in supporting official diplomacy.
Though in six paragraphs, the letter is a three-issue message: self-introduction; presentation of Ike Ekweremadu as a good compatriot, altruist and philanthropist; and plaidoyer. In the self-introductory part, Chief Obasanjo moved away completely from the idea of ‘l’état, c’est moi.’ He simply said ‘I am Olusegun Obasanjo, a soldier commissioned into the British Army of the West African Frontier force in 1958. I received the surrender of the Biafran Army at the end of the Nigerian civil war. I was military Head of State from 1976 to 1979 and elected President from 1999 to 2007.’
The presentation of Senator Ike Ekweremadu in paragraphs 3 and 4 is special. It is aimed at making the Central Criminal Court to note that the person of Ekweremadu is good, that he has been promoting and protecting the interests of children and therefore could not have had any intention of wickedness. He is a man of God. As noted by Obasanjo, Ekweremadu is ‘God-fearing, dispassionate, moderate and pan-Nigerian (in) approach to national issues and developments, in our multi-ethnic, multi-religious geo-polity.’
Put differently, Ekweremadu did not deliberately commit the offence for which he was indicted. Based on this, Chief Obasanjo in the next paragraph pleaded with the Chief Clerk to use his good offices ‘to intervene and appeal to the court and the government of the United Kingdom to be magnanimous enough to temper justice with mercy and let punishment that may have to come to take their good character and parental instinct and care into consideration.’ He admitted that the offence of Ekweremadu ‘is unpleasant and condemnable and can’t be tolerated in any sane or civilised society.
From the foregoing, there is no disputing the fact that the letter is perfectly in order, altruistic, and welcome a development, especially that there has not been any kidney transfer. The criminal aspect of the offence is partly a resultant from the monetary transactional aspect. Kidney transfer is a common deal. The spirit behind the letter is commendable in light of the fact that state pardon or presidential pardon is meaningless if there is no criminal offence committed. It is because one is an offender that room is given for the application of presidential pardon. In other words, Ike Ekweremadu is now an issue in Nigeria-Britain relations, and therefore raises the question of how justice can be tempered with mercy and how it can also enhance the bilateral ties between the two countries. More importantly, how do we save Senator Ekweremadu from being sentenced to jail? These are difficult questions that Chief Obasanjo appears to have constructively considered and therefore have to adopt the approach of humility in diplomacy in writing to the Chief Clerk. The humility is expressed in measured language. Based on the rule of jus soli, Ekweremadu’s offence was committed in the United Kingdom of which Ekweremadu may be a citizen.
In terms of diplomacy and anger, the extension of courtesy, specifically humility by people, is generally a rarity. For instance, on 17 August, 2019, Ekweremadu was violently attacked by some members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) while he was attending the Second Annual Cultural Festival and Convention held in Nuremberg, Germany. The attack was allegedly in reaction to the killing of Igbos during the operation Crocodile Smile and Python Dance, staged by the Nigerian Army in Nigeria. True, the attackers violated the person of Ekweremadu because of his alleged role in the proscription of IPOB.
In the same manner, in reaction to the charge of conspiracy to arrange to harvest the kidney of a Nigerian, UkpoNwamini David, born on October 12, 2000, at the Royal Free Hospital in the UK, at a cost of 80,000 pound sterling, Ekweremadu was indicted. He was charged on 23 June, 2022 and convicted on 23 March, 2023, exactly nine months after the charge. In the course of prosecution, Ekweremadu was never respected as a citizen of Nigeria or as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Even if some reporters have rightly or wrongly claimed that Ekweremadu is a citizen of the UK, the attack on him in Nuremberg has no expression of humility. The prosecution process at the Central Criminal Court did not also show any courtesy. There was nothing like humility. The truth remains that Ekweremadu was only humbled by the attacks and his arrest and conviction. This simply suggests that humility can only be shown when the situational reality permits it and when an individual chooses to be humble. In this regard, can it be argued that the attackers, four of them, have been humbled by their own arrest and conviction for physical assault and sentencing to 20 days of hard labour without any option of fine?
The point being made here is that in the course of diplomacy, a good basis must first exist for humility to be shown. In Nigeria, speaking grosso modo, social and official relationship is largely predicated on master-servant style of interaction or on vertical style of relationship. Nigeria is a country of titles and self-esteem. When titles are not expressly shown, people are immediately angered. The mere showing of humility does not help to achieve an objective. A propitious environment must first exist before it can be functionally useful. What about bullying and being extraordinarily proud?
Humility and Indictment of Donald Trump
The political life of former President Donald trump is far from being humble, especially as Mr President of the United States. There is no individual or any state he cannot insult. He always spoke from the position of power of arrogance, power of a business tycoon, and the United States as a super power. At a news conference with the Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, in the East Room of the White house on January 10, 2018 in Washington, the issue of immigration and frustrations with the Visa Lottery was raised. President Trump queried why migrants from ‘shithole countries’ should be allowed in America. He was referring to Haiti, El Salvador and African countries. The reference to some countries as ‘shithole’ was considered unfriendly, shocking, shameful and racist by many international observers. In fact, the Foreign Minister of Haiti had to summon the US Ambassador for clarification on the shithole matter.
As reportedly quoted, Donald Trump said ‘the Democrats seem intent on having people and drugs pour into our country from the Southern Border, risking thousands of lives in the process. It is my duty to protect the lives and safety of all Americans. We must build a Great Wall, think Merit and end Lottery and Chain, USA.’ From this statement, can Donald Trump be blamed for not being humble, for being proud and determined to protect the American interest? Donald trump wanted a merit-based immigration system. Where does the factor of humility fall in the protection of the national interest?
Humility and protection of the national interest apart, the attitude of Donald Trump is a life of non-humility in all ramifications. US foreign policy under Donald Trump was that of dictatorship and arrogance. In some international organisations where US interests are challenged or unaccepted, US policy was always a threat of withdrawal or outright withdrawal. The question here again, to who should the United States show humility? Perhaps more interestingly, Donald Trump has three complementary policies: ‘America First,’ Make America Great Again,’ and ‘Make America Great Again, Again.’
The ‘America First’ policy simply implies non-consideration of any other national interest. US foreign policy interest is superior to all others. Therefore, there is no compromise. All other Member States of the international community must accept whatever the Washingtonian authorities say and do. The ‘Make America Great Again’ ‘and Again,’ raises what made America great initially, because the policy also implies that America was once great but the status of greatness had been lost and had to be regained. Making America great again, and again suggests that Donald Trump made America great when he was US president, and now wants to repeat the same feat if he is allowed to contest and win in 2024.
In all circumstances, however, all the policies were made and implemented within the framework of braggadocio. Put differently, what did Donald Trump do as president to make America great and that he is seeking to repeat? Were they his anti-immigrant policies, building an American version of Berlin wall between the United States and Mexico, anti-media stance, shithole policies, anti-African policy? All these cases have little or no room for humility either in official, citizen, public, economic, development, social, etc. diplomacy.
In fact, the presidential attitudinal recklessness of Donald Trump is well revealed at the level of his indictment as the first US president to be indicted.
Even before going to the court on Tuesday, 4th April to be arraigned, Mugshots of Trump were made with the inscription, ‘Not Guilty.’ He was indicted on March 30, 2023 by a Manhattan Grand Jury. The indictment, with number 71543-23, was unsealed on Tuesday, 4th April, in the afternoon after his arraignment in a lower Manhattan court. The indictment was on grounds of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The 34 counts are all E felonies, and the lowest category of felony offence in New York, carrying a maximum prison sentence of four years. Basically, Donald Trump was accused of directing three cases of hush money payments to cover up shady deals.
Expectedly, Donald Trump pleaded not guilty at the court, in the strong belief that the case against him was politically motivated. Based on this, he recklessly insulted the judge and the prosecutor, arguing that the case was nothing more than ‘an insult to our country. Our country is going to hell.’ What Donald Trump is simply saying is that, whatever he says is always the correct version of the truth and must be accepted. Whatever is inconsistent with his position should be promptly jettisoned.
When Donald Trump left the court and arrived in Florida, he gave his impression of what transpired at the court as follows: ‘very unfair venue, with some areas that voted 1% Republican; this case should be moved to nearby Staten Island –would be a very fair and secure location for the trial. Additionally, the highly partisan judge and his family are well known Trump haters. He was an unfair disaster on a previous Trump related case, wouldn’t recuse, gave horrible jury instructions, and impossible to deal with during the witch hunt trial. His daughter, worked for Kamala and now the Biden Harris campaign Kangaroo court.’
Without any whiff of doubt, Donald Trump can have complaints against the judge, especially in light of his alleged horrible jury instructions or impossibility to deal with, and his perceived hatred by the judge. It must not be forgotten, however, that Donald Trump still has many cases to answer in the court. He had classified documents in his possession after leaving office. He was an accomplice in the violent attack on the US congress. He has been impeached two times but without being removed. Whereas the Constitution of the United States stipulates in its Article 1, Section 3 that when a Federal Government official is impeached and removed from office, they ‘shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to the law.’
In other words, is Donald Trump claiming immunity from prosecution? He believed, based on the legal opinion given to him while in the White House that a serving president cannot be indicted. But he easily forgets that the indictment can come after leaving office. He also forgets history. President Richard Nixon was to be indicted and sentenced for his role in the Watergate scandal. As Hillel Italie an AP National writer noted on April 2, 2023 ‘in 1974, Richard Nixon may well have avoided criminal charges on obstruction of justice or bribery, related to the Watergate Scandal, only because President Gerald Ford pardoned him just weeks after Nixon resigned the presidency.’
Indeed, many former presidents have offended the law but have not been charged to court for various reasons. Donald Trump simply happened to be the first to be actually indicted in spite of the fact that he had other ‘first Titles’: First President without government or military experience; First President to be impeached twice; and First President to aggressively challenge the certification of his successor. There is nothing yet to suggest that he will not also be the first US president to be indicted and sentenced to imprisonment, especially that he has no due regard for the rule of law and for the law court. He has up till August 2023 to file any motion against the court indictment. So far, as of April 5, 2023, 05’30 GMT, there have been 340 million views and 11,000 comments according to the BBC.co.UK. Millions of people are monitoring and waiting, especially that if Donald Trump is found guilty, he could face 136 years in the prison. This is calculated on the basis of four years for each offence. It is against this background that humility in diplomacy, whichever is the type, should be understood.
What really should we understand as humility in diplomacy? In which type of diplomacy are we talking about humility? Are we talking about humility in diplomacy as an art or science? When should there be expression of humility in diplomacy? When is bullying and extravagant pride avoidable or necessary? How far can Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s letter in preventing the eventual sentencing of Ekweremadu? In the same vein, how far can former President Donald Trump’s bullying intimidate the court to the extent of having to dance to the tunes of Donald Trump? Many questions with few answers! Humility is an individual expression in inter-personal relationships. It can be horizontal in nature, or vertical in which case it can be descending or ascending. In Nigeria, vertical relationships are generally ascending and hardly descending. They are master-servant type of relationships. In official diplomatic practice, it is the principle of sovereign equality that reigns. It does not allow for superiority of one state over another. Consequently, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s letter to the Chief Clerk of the Central Criminal Court in London falls squarely within citizen diplomacy and therefore most welcome. For Donald Trump, he has achieved much through bullying. The only thing is that bullying has time limitation but humility does not.
