Nigeria and BRICS’ Politics: A New Concert of Medium Powers as a Desideratum

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

BRICS is the name of an economic development-seeking bloc of four countries that held a series of irregular high-level consultative meetings before it held its first BRIC summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia on 16 June, 2009 after which summits began to be held annually. BRICS is an acronym formed from the initials of the Member States: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It was founded on the margins of the 61st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, United States.

As coined and explained by the Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management International, Jim O’Neill, BRICS ‘don’t have the same interests. The wealth per head is very different, the politics is very different, and the philosophy and their natural economic edge is different.’ In other words, the BRICS is an association with many differences but which is seeking removal of the differences so as to collectively address their common challenges.

Conceptually, BRICS denotes the emerging national economies of the five Member States. The initial acronym was BRIC before the accession of South Africa to the BRIC agreement in 2010. With the membership of South Africa, and its warm welcoming to the BRIC Summit of 2011, the acronym became BRICS. Many questions have been raised on why not BRINCS to include Nigeria. If the criterion for membership is size of population, size of economy and geo-political importance, it is believed that Nigeria eminently qualifies.

In the same vein, observations have been made and questions were also raised on the true motivations of the BRICS. The Goldman Sachs school of thought has it that the economies of the Member States ‘would come to collectively dominate global growth by 2050.’ The implication of this cannot be far-fetched: expectation that BRICS will become a major threat to the current advanced economies of the world. By further implication, the advanced economies should begin to prepare for the future challenges.

And true again, some other observers consider the BRICS as a major challenger to the powerful G-7, comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and the United States, with the European Union serving as a non-enumerated member. In this regard, what really is the objective of the BRICS? Should Nigeria be part of it? Is it designed intentionally as an anti-West or anti-United States? Should Nigeria not revisit Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi’s Concert of Medium of Powers in Nigeria’s national interest?

BRICS and the Global System

The perception of the BRICS to be capable of seriously challenging the current international financial institutions can be considered a truism, especially that, severally and collectively, they are estimated to have by January 2024 a combined GDP of about $27.6 trillion, with the Chinese accounting for about 60% of it, that is, about $19.3 trillion. The estimated share of India is put at $3.07 trillion. While Brazil is to account for $2.08 trillion, Russia and South Africa are to account for $2.06 trillion and $399 billion respectively.

Comparatively at the level of Nigeria, the GDP of Nigeria has been rightly reported to be more than what obtains in South Africa. Nigeria had a GDP of $2671.60 billion in 2020, $3150.31bn in 2021, $3,385,09bn in 2022, and $3,737.00 billion as at end of June 2023. In terms of per capita income, it increased from $1,913 in 2020 to $2,238 in 2021 and then to $2,389 in 2022 and $2,601 in the first half of the year 2023.

Based on the historiography and official declarations at the end of past summits of the BRICS, it can be rightly suggested that one major dynamic for the establishment of the BRICS is to jettison the current international economic world order and replace it or create another competing order. For instance, the Sanya Declaration made at the Third Summit of

the BRICS on 14th April, 2011 in China talked about the need for a ‘comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council.’

Explained differently, the declaration made in Sanya in Hainan, China says ‘it is the overarching objective and strong shared desire for peace, security, development and cooperation that brought together BRICS with a total population of nearly three billion from different continents. BRICS aims at contributing significantly to the development of humanity and establishing a more equitable and fair world.’ In other words, the motivation is not simply about the quest for peace, security and development, but also about the need for a more equitable and fair world.

The quest for equity and fairness is intrinsically a protest against the current order and we have no qualms with this. The objectives appear to be perfectly in order, but how does the BRICS go about the implementation of the objectives? Does it want to negotiate or confront? The same Sanya Declaration underscored the determination of the BRICS ‘to continue strengthening the BRICS partnership for common development and advance BRICS cooperation in a gradual and pragmatic manner, reflecting the principles of openness, solidarity and mutual assistance. We reiterate that such cooperation is inclusive and non- confrontational. We are open to increasing engagement and cooperation with non-BRICS countries, and relevant international and regional organisations.’ Expressed differently, emphasis is placed on inclusiveness, readiness to expand membership of the BRICS and adoption of a non-confrontational approach.

What is particularly noteworthy about the Sanya Declaration is the call for enhancement of the voice of the emerging and developing countries to be heard. ‘China and Russia reiterate the importance they attach to the status of India, Brazil and South Africa in international affairs, and understand and support their aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations.’ This first point to note is that India, Brazil, and South Africa are reported to be aspiring to play a greater role at the United Nations. The three of them are already members of the United Nations. The quest for greater role cannot but therefore be synonymous with interest to become Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with or without veto power.

In this regard, the quest to play greater roles at the United Nations implies that the BRICS is working directly to ensure that all their members become Permanent Members of the UNSC. It is equally noteworthy that the Sanya Declaration appreciated that, in 2011, the five members of the BRICS were concurrently members of the UNSC. There is no indication to suggest that the membership was coincidental or it was by strategic design, apart from Russia and China who are already Permanent Members of the UNSC..

And perhaps more disturbingly, even though the BRICS is in pursuit of economic development agenda, the likelihood of its moving beyond economic objectives to dealing with international security issues in the future cannot be ruled out. It should be recalled that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was established in 1975 to promote economic cooperation and partnership, with the ultimate objective of regional integration. When the unexpected situation of insecurity began to deepen, a Protocol on Non- Aggression was done in 1978 and its Article 1 requires all the Member States to ‘refrain from the threat or use of force or aggression… against the territorial integrity and political independence of other Member States.’

Besides, in 1981, the ECOWAS also adopted another Protocol Relating to Mutual Assistance in Defence (PMAD) in which its Article 2 stipulates that the ‘Member States declare and accept that any armed threat or aggression directed against any Member State shall constitute a threat or aggression against the entire community.’ Consequently, Article 3 further stipulates that ‘Member States resolve to give mutual aid and assistance for defence against any armed threat or aggression.’

   From the foregoing, there may not be any limitation to the scope of objectives of any organisation. In fact, there cannot be any disputation about the 1957 Rome Treaty that established the European Economic Community of Six, with the set objective of a Common Market. Later, the EEC mutated to an EC (European Community) and eventually to European Union, thanks to the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. The objectives of the European Union are multidimensional and covering all facets of human survival. In other words, the vision and mission of the European Union kept changing but enriching. With the current situational reality of international politics and BRICS’ quest for membership expansion, the objectives of the BRICS cannot but have the potential to be greatly diversified.

And without scintilla of doubt, the way the BRICS drew its membership from different continents was precisely the manner the CMP’s membership was drawn. The CMP had sixteen members: Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and Senegal, as well as Zimbabwe from Africa; Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela from Latin America; Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia from Europe; and Indonesia and Malaysia from Asia. The CMP already set the leadership space. Nigeria already set the leadership space to be emulated.

Currently, the BRICS, apparently, is increasingly becoming anti-West. One possible rationale might be the consideration that China and Russia are traditional rivals of the United States. Consequently, the use of the BRICS by Russia and China as an anti-United States platform cannot and should not be simply waived away with a stroke of the hand.

NCMP as a Desideratum

In discussing the need for a New Concert of Medium Powers (NCMP), there is the need to understand two preliminary observations. First is that whatever the Nigeria of today wants to achieve by seeking to join the BRICS ought to have been gotten many decades ago if policy makers had had ears that listen. Secondly, it should be recalled that Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi, in his capacity as the Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), organised a conference, held between 25th and 30th January, 1976 at the NIIA.

Three schools of thought emerged at the conference: the idealist, reformist and realist schools. The idealist school comprises the proponents of charity should begin from home or that Nigeria must first put its house in order by particularly developing a home-grown technology capability and reducing, if not completely, removing her foreign and development policy dependency syndrome.

The reformist school of thought wanted Nigeria’s socio-economic problems modernised and revamped to be able to meaningfully respond to the challenges of being a regional power. In the case of the realist school, to which Professor Bolaji Akinyemi belonged and still belongs, the school posited that Nigeria ‘could not be said to be powerful or great in the conduct and management of international affairs. However, this should not imply disinterest in becoming a regional influential or power. Nigeria should be free to aspire to be a great power and not simply being a middle power.

Professor Akinyemi not only naturally subscribed to this realist school, but also took advantage of his leadership of the NIIA to promote the realist school, with particular emphasis on ideals of self-help, self-reliancism, self-integrity and dint of perseverance as the required instruments for earning national respect, international recognition and economic growth and development.

In fact, his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1985 under the military president, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, enabled his invaluable ideas to blossom. He not only floated the idea of a Black Bomb which scared the big powers in their various homes in Europe. He shook the whole of Africa with what is known today as the Akinyemi’s Consultation Doctrine (ACD), which requires any country seeking Nigeria’s help to first

cultivate the culture of prior consultation with Nigeria before such help could be considered. This consultation doctrine was propounded at the 1986 Kuru Conference against the background of Libya’s mésentente with the United States.

Perhaps more importantly were the introduction in 1987 of the Technical Aid Corps Scheme and suggestion of a Concert of Medium Powers to serve as an antidote to superpower mainmise and use of force to settle geo-political problems in Africa. The fear created by Professor Akinyemi’s Black Bomb nationally, regionally, and internationally was frightening. Nigeria’s as a rising giant by then, coupled with a possible challenger that the CMP was then, compelled the change in the name of the CMP: from Concert of Medium Powers to Lagos Forum. True enough, the CMP paved the way for the Lagos Forum meeting of March 16-18, 1987. The Forum not only discussed within the framework of a concert, but also midwifed the CMP by investigating the CMP as a concept, and as a new approach to international cooperation.

And true enough again, for about one year before the Lagos Forum meeting, several consultations were held bilaterally, plurilaterally, and multilaterally, such as the informal ministerial meetings held on the side-lines of the 41st session of the UN General Assembly in September, 1986. The Lagos Forum was also consultative. It even went beyond mere exploration to agreeing on the expansion of the Forum and also unanimously deciding to invite Hungary, Australia, Pakistan, Peru and Canada to join the Forum.

What is noteworthy was that, apart from Ethiopia, all the invitees to the second meeting of the Forum held on 1-3 September, 1987 attended. Zimbabwe, considering itself not qualified to be a medium power, had to withdraw its membership of the Lagos Forum. And perhaps more importantly, the considerations that the big powers were always acting to the detriment of the interests of the small and middle powers – like the then recidivist arms race, militarisation of the outer space, the marginalisation of small and medium powers in global governance, etc. – prompted Professor Akinyemi’s CMP initiative. This is precisely the nature of the complaints of the BRICS in seeking today another approach to the conduct and management of international relations.

Nigeria and BRICS’ Politics: A New Concert 

of Medium Powers as a Desideratum

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

B

RICS is the name of an economic development-seeking bloc of four countries that held a series of irregular high-level consultative meetings before it held its first BRIC summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia on 16 June, 2009 after which summits began to be held annually. BRICS is an acronym formed from the initials of the Member States: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It was founded on the margins of the 61st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, United States.

As coined and explained by the Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management International, Jim O’Neill, BRICS ‘don’t have the same interests. The wealth per head is very different, the politics is very different, and the philosophy and their natural economic edge is different.’ In other words, the BRICS is an association with many differences but which is seeking removal of the differences so as to collectively address their common challenges.

Conceptually, BRICS denotes the emerging national economies of the five Member States. The initial acronym was BRIC before the accession of South Africa to the BRIC agreement in 2010. With the membership of South Africa, and its warm welcoming to the BRIC Summit of 2011, the acronym became BRICS. Many questions have been raised on why not BRINCS to include Nigeria. If the criterion for membership is size of population, size of economy and geo-political importance, it is believed that Nigeria eminently qualifies.

In the same vein, observations have been made and questions were also raised on the true motivations of the BRICS. The Goldman Sachs school of thought has it that the economies of the Member States ‘would come to collectively dominate global growth by 2050.’ The implication of this cannot be far-fetched: expectation that BRICS will become a major threat to the current advanced economies of the world. By further implication, the advanced economies should begin to prepare for the future challenges.

And true again, some other observers consider the BRICS as a major challenger to the powerful G-7, comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and the United States, with the European Union serving as a non-enumerated member. In this regard, what really is the objective of the BRICS? Should Nigeria be part of it? Is it designed intentionally as an anti-West or anti-United States? Should Nigeria not revisit Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi’s Concert of Medium of Powers in Nigeria’s national interest?

BRICS and the Global System

The perception of the BRICS to be capable of seriously challenging the current international financial institutions can be considered a truism, especially that, severally and collectively, they are estimated to have by January 2024 a combined GDP of about $27.6 trillion, with the Chinese accounting for about 60% of it, that is, about $19.3 trillion. The estimated share of India is put at $3.07 trillion. While Brazil is to account for $2.08 trillion, Russia and South Africa are to account for $2.06 trillion and $399 billion respectively.

Comparatively at the level of Nigeria, the GDP of Nigeria has been rightly reported to be more than what obtains in South Africa. Nigeria had a GDP of $2671.60 billion in 2020, $3150.31bn in 2021, $3,385,09bn in 2022, and $3,737.00 billion as at end of June 2023. In terms of per capita income, it increased from $1,913 in 2020 to $2,238 in 2021 and then to $2,389 in 2022 and $2,601 in the first half of the year 2023.

Based on the historiography and official declarations at the end of past summits of the BRICS, it can be rightly suggested that one major dynamic for the establishment of the BRICS is to jettison the current international economic world order and replace it or create another competing order. For instance, the Sanya Declaration made at the Third Summit of

the BRICS on 14th April, 2011 in China talked about the need for a ‘comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council.’

Explained differently, the declaration made in Sanya in Hainan, China says ‘it is the overarching objective and strong shared desire for peace, security, development and cooperation that brought together BRICS with a total population of nearly three billion from different continents. BRICS aims at contributing significantly to the development of humanity and establishing a more equitable and fair world.’ In other words, the motivation is not simply about the quest for peace, security and development, but also about the need for a more equitable and fair world.

The quest for equity and fairness is intrinsically a protest against the current order and we have no qualms with this. The objectives appear to be perfectly in order, but how does the BRICS go about the implementation of the objectives? Does it want to negotiate or confront? The same Sanya Declaration underscored the determination of the BRICS ‘to continue strengthening the BRICS partnership for common development and advance BRICS cooperation in a gradual and pragmatic manner, reflecting the principles of openness, solidarity and mutual assistance. We reiterate that such cooperation is inclusive and non- confrontational. We are open to increasing engagement and cooperation with non-BRICS countries, and relevant international and regional organisations.’ Expressed differently, emphasis is placed on inclusiveness, readiness to expand membership of the BRICS and adoption of a non-confrontational approach.

What is particularly noteworthy about the Sanya Declaration is the call for enhancement of the voice of the emerging and developing countries to be heard. ‘China and Russia reiterate the importance they attach to the status of India, Brazil and South Africa in international affairs, and understand and support their aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations.’ This first point to note is that India, Brazil, and South Africa are reported to be aspiring to play a greater role at the United Nations. The three of them are already members of the United Nations. The quest for greater role cannot but therefore be synonymous with interest to become Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with or without veto power.

In this regard, the quest to play greater roles at the United Nations implies that the BRICS is working directly to ensure that all their members become Permanent Members of the UNSC. It is equally noteworthy that the Sanya Declaration appreciated that, in 2011, the five members of the BRICS were concurrently members of the UNSC. There is no indication to suggest that the membership was coincidental or it was by strategic design, apart from Russia and China who are already Permanent Members of the UNSC..

And perhaps more disturbingly, even though the BRICS is in pursuit of economic development agenda, the likelihood of its moving beyond economic objectives to dealing with international security issues in the future cannot be ruled out. It should be recalled that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was established in 1975 to promote economic cooperation and partnership, with the ultimate objective of regional integration. When the unexpected situation of insecurity began to deepen, a Protocol on Non- Aggression was done in 1978 and its Article 1 requires all the Member States to ‘refrain from the threat or use of force or aggression… against the territorial integrity and political independence of other Member States.’

Besides, in 1981, the ECOWAS also adopted another Protocol Relating to Mutual Assistance in Defence (PMAD) in which its Article 2 stipulates that the ‘Member States declare and accept that any armed threat or aggression directed against any Member State shall constitute a threat or aggression against the entire community.’ Consequently, Article 3 further stipulates that ‘Member States resolve to give mutual aid and assistance for defence against any armed threat or aggression.’

   From the foregoing, there may not be any limitation to the scope of objectives of any organisation. In fact, there cannot be any disputation about the 1957 Rome Treaty that established the European Economic Community of Six, with the set objective of a Common Market. Later, the EEC mutated to an EC (European Community) and eventually to European Union, thanks to the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. The objectives of the European Union are multidimensional and covering all facets of human survival. In other words, the vision and mission of the European Union kept changing but enriching. With the current situational reality of international politics and BRICS’ quest for membership expansion, the objectives of the BRICS cannot but have the potential to be greatly diversified.

And without scintilla of doubt, the way the BRICS drew its membership from different continents was precisely the manner the CMP’s membership was drawn. The CMP had sixteen members: Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and Senegal, as well as Zimbabwe from Africa; Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela from Latin America; Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia from Europe; and Indonesia and Malaysia from Asia. The CMP already set the leadership space. Nigeria already set the leadership space to be emulated.

Currently, the BRICS, apparently, is increasingly becoming anti-West. One possible rationale might be the consideration that China and Russia are traditional rivals of the United States. Consequently, the use of the BRICS by Russia and China as an anti-United States platform cannot and should not be simply waived away with a stroke of the hand.

NCMP as a Desideratum

In discussing the need for a New Concert of Medium Powers (NCMP), there is the need to understand two preliminary observations. First is that whatever the Nigeria of today wants to achieve by seeking to join the BRICS ought to have been gotten many decades ago if policy makers had had ears that listen. Secondly, it should be recalled that Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi, in his capacity as the Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), organised a conference, held between 25th and 30th January, 1976 at the NIIA.

Three schools of thought emerged at the conference: the idealist, reformist and realist schools. The idealist school comprises the proponents of charity should begin from home or that Nigeria must first put its house in order by particularly developing a home-grown technology capability and reducing, if not completely, removing her foreign and development policy dependency syndrome.

The reformist school of thought wanted Nigeria’s socio-economic problems modernised and revamped to be able to meaningfully respond to the challenges of being a regional power. In the case of the realist school, to which Professor Bolaji Akinyemi belonged and still belongs, the school posited that Nigeria ‘could not be said to be powerful or great in the conduct and management of international affairs. However, this should not imply disinterest in becoming a regional influential or power. Nigeria should be free to aspire to be a great power and not simply being a middle power.

Professor Akinyemi not only naturally subscribed to this realist school, but also took advantage of his leadership of the NIIA to promote the realist school, with particular emphasis on ideals of self-help, self-reliancism, self-integrity and dint of perseverance as the required instruments for earning national respect, international recognition and economic growth and development.

In fact, his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1985 under the military president, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, enabled his invaluable ideas to blossom. He not only floated the idea of a Black Bomb which scared the big powers in their various homes in Europe. He shook the whole of Africa with what is known today as the Akinyemi’s Consultation Doctrine (ACD), which requires any country seeking Nigeria’s help to first

cultivate the culture of prior consultation with Nigeria before such help could be considered. This consultation doctrine was propounded at the 1986 Kuru Conference against the background of Libya’s mésentente with the United States.

Perhaps more importantly were the introduction in 1987 of the Technical Aid Corps Scheme and suggestion of a Concert of Medium Powers to serve as an antidote to superpower mainmise and use of force to settle geo-political problems in Africa. The fear created by Professor Akinyemi’s Black Bomb nationally, regionally, and internationally was frightening. Nigeria’s as a rising giant by then, coupled with a possible challenger that the CMP was then, compelled the change in the name of the CMP: from Concert of Medium Powers to Lagos Forum. True enough, the CMP paved the way for the Lagos Forum meeting of March 16-18, 1987. The Forum not only discussed within the framework of a concert, but also midwifed the CMP by investigating the CMP as a concept, and as a new approach to international cooperation.

And true enough again, for about one year before the Lagos Forum meeting, several consultations were held bilaterally, plurilaterally, and multilaterally, such as the informal ministerial meetings held on the side-lines of the 41st session of the UN General Assembly in September, 1986. The Lagos Forum was also consultative. It even went beyond mere exploration to agreeing on the expansion of the Forum and also unanimously deciding to invite Hungary, Australia, Pakistan, Peru and Canada to join the Forum.

What is noteworthy was that, apart from Ethiopia, all the invitees to the second meeting of the Forum held on 1-3 September, 1987 attended. Zimbabwe, considering itself not qualified to be a medium power, had to withdraw its membership of the Lagos Forum. And perhaps more importantly, the considerations that the big powers were always acting to the detriment of the interests of the small and middle powers – like the then recidivist arms race, militarisation of the outer space, the marginalisation of small and medium powers in global governance, etc. – prompted Professor Akinyemi’s CMP initiative. This is precisely the nature of the complaints of the BRICS in seeking today another approach to the conduct and management of international relations.

Put differently, the purpose for which the Concert of Medium Powers was conceived is not different from that of today’s BRICS. In the thinking of Professor Bolaji Akinyemi in 1987, there was the need for self-protection and relevance in the conduct and management of international questions. The big powers were governing the international space dictatorially through their arms race, outer space competition, and resolution of geo-political questions by use of force, etc. Imagine, for example, the politics of non-nuclearisation. The Five Permanent Members of the UNSC are internationally recognised as Nuclear Weapons States. They constituted themselves informally into a nuclear club to which application for membership is permanently closed. The nuclear policy is that nuclear development is allowed for peaceful purposes only. Any disobedience to the rule is heavily sanctioned including the threat of use of force.

In this regard, the natural question has always been inequality and unfairness: why are some countries assisted to acquire nuclear power and status and some others are being prevented to so acquire? Why should some countries develop their own bombs for self- defence and others will not be allowed? It is within this frame of thinking that Professor considered the need for a Black Bomb in the same way Francophone African countries expressed happiness and appraised French atomic bomb tests in the Reggane area of the Sahara desert in 1960. They saw the French bombs as an umbrella of protection for the Francophone world. In fact, it was jubilations galore.

In essence, and without any jot of doubt, if the membership of the BRICS were to be based on merit, there is no reason why Nigeria should not be pleaded with to join the intergovernmental organisation, but this has not been. And probably more disturbingly, some

informed sources have it that Nigeria applied to join the BRICS in 2015 but turned down. If this was true, the representation of Nigeria at the last summit of the BRICS by Nigeria’s Vice President was most unfortunate to say the least. Why should an unwanted country be still frolicking around the BRICS? Why should foreign policy makers not learn from history or forget history? Nigeria is a giant and leader not only because of her demography, territorial size and wealth. Indeed, what also makes Nigeria thick and great is a priori the dynamism of her people, the fact that Nigeria has the biggest arable land in Africa, the quality of her civil and public servants, the resource intellectuals, learned people, graduates, great professionals, historians and scientists, etc. This is the pride and strength of Nigeria. When Nigeria was boasting of hundreds of medical graduates in 1960, many African countries could not boast of ten. The World Bank Report of 1987 described Nigeria as the largest African country with a GDP of $74bn, coming after South Africa and Algeria. In the West African region, in the same 1987, Nigeria’s GDP was twice that of all other countries in the region put together. Consequently, it has become necessary for Nigeria to reconcile the postulations of the foreign policy idealists, reformists and realists. There is really the need to revisit the Akinyemi Doctrine, the idea of a Nigerian Bomb, and most importantly, the idea of another Lagos Forum. The CMP has now become a desideratum.

Put differently, the purpose for which the Concert of Medium Powers was conceived is not different from that of today’s BRICS. In the thinking of Professor Bolaji Akinyemi in 1987, there was the need for self-protection and relevance in the conduct and management of international questions. The big powers were governing the international space dictatorially through their arms race, outer space competition, and resolution of geo-political questions by use of force, etc. Imagine, for example, the politics of non-nuclearisation. The Five Permanent Members of the UNSC are internationally recognised as Nuclear Weapons States. They constituted themselves informally into a nuclear club to which application for membership is permanently closed. The nuclear policy is that nuclear development is allowed for peaceful purposes only. Any disobedience to the rule is heavily sanctioned including the threat of use of force.

In this regard, the natural question has always been inequality and unfairness: why are some countries assisted to acquire nuclear power and status and some others are being prevented to so acquire? Why should some countries develop their own bombs for self- defence and others will not be allowed? It is within this frame of thinking that Professor considered the need for a Black Bomb in the same way Francophone African countries expressed happiness and appraised French atomic bomb tests in the Reggane area of the Sahara desert in 1960. They saw the French bombs as an umbrella of protection for the Francophone world. In fact, it was jubilations galore.

In essence, and without any jot of doubt, if the membership of the BRICS were to be based on merit, there is no reason why Nigeria should not be pleaded with to join the intergovernmental organisation, but this has not been. And probably more disturbingly, some

informed sources have it that Nigeria applied to join the BRICS in 2015 but turned down. If this was true, the representation of Nigeria at the last summit of the BRICS by Nigeria’s Vice President was most unfortunate to say the least. Why should an unwanted country be still frolicking around the BRICS? Why should foreign policy makers not learn from history or forget history? Nigeria is a giant and leader not only because of her demography, territorial size and wealth. Indeed, what also makes Nigeria thick and great is a priori the dynamism of her people, the fact that Nigeria has the biggest arable land in Africa, the quality of her civil and public servants, the resource intellectuals, learned people, graduates, great professionals, historians and scientists, etc. This is the pride and strength of Nigeria. When Nigeria was boasting of hundreds of medical graduates in 1960, many African countries could not boast of ten. The World Bank Report of 1987 described Nigeria as the largest African country with a GDP of $74bn, coming after South Africa and Algeria. In the West African region, in the same 1987, Nigeria’s GDP was twice that of all other countries in the region put together. Consequently, it has become necessary for Nigeria to reconcile the postulations of the foreign policy idealists, reformists and realists. There is really the need to revisit the Akinyemi Doctrine, the idea of a Nigerian Bomb, and most importantly, the idea of another Lagos Forum. The CMP has now become a desideratum.