National sovereignty, Nigeria and Make America Great Again nostrums

First things first, is to wish everyone a truly joyful New Year 2025!

Today’s policy discourse evaluates the sovereignty of independent nations, juxtaposed against the challenge of the Make America Great Again “MAGA” populist nostrum; that’s being vigorously projected by Donald Trump, the 45th United States President; who is due to assume office as the 47th President, for the second and final term on January 20, 2025.

Why this subject and why now? The answer to the first point, is because the subject matter is directly relevant to global geopolitics given American pre-eminence, within the realms of global leadership, force projection, military and technological superiority, economic competitive advantage, coupled with the de facto dollarisation of the world economy.

The answer to the second point, is because of the stridently unending rivalry, pertaining to economic, military, technological, territorial and multiple domains against American pre-eminence by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran (the “Quartet”).

These postulations are demonstrated by several important examples. First, is the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Russia is actively supported by the Quartet, a phenomenon that’s further demonstrated by the active deployment of North Korea troops against Ukrainian forces. On the opposing side, Ukraine is supported by the United States, Western allies notably the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the AUKUS tripartite defence pact comprising Australia, United Kingdom and the United States. The United States alone has provided $94 billion whilst other Western allies have given approximately $148 billion to support Ukrainian offensive and defensive campaigns against Russia.

Second, is the continuum of conflict which, yet again, unites the Quartet (especially China) against the United States and its western allies on opposing sides of the dangerously escalating brinkmanship in the Indo-Pacific region and South China Sea. Reinforced by complementary security interests, the United States has secured important inroads to four strategically significant military bases in the Philippines – Naval Base Camilo Osias in Santa Ana, Cagayan; Camp Melchor Dela Cruz in Gamu, Isabela; Balabac Island in Palawan; and Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan.

America has broadened and deepened troop numbers in Japan; gained a defence pact with Papua New Guinea for more robust collaborative engagements, and it has secured mutually beneficial gains with Australian forces within the maritime and outer space domains. Together, these dynamics complicate Chinese stratagem and the latter’s potential for invading Taiwan, which China claims as its territory -although vigorously opposed by the United States- under the one-China policy.

Third, is the dominance of the US dollar as the de facto global “reserve currency” given its pre-eminence in global transactions; a factor which, for the umpteenth time, splits the U.S. and its allies; against the Quartet and swathes for Global South sovereign nations – pining for international multipolarity.

Upon these foundational geopolitical flashpoints, springs forth a policy dilemma for the countries like Nigeria, South Africa, India, the North Aligned Movement and others: should they turn to the Trumpian MAGA doctrine or should they turn to the China, Russia, North Korea and Iran (the “Quartet”)?

Of course, intelligent realpolitik in foreign policy and statecraft, invokes the premise of national interests as the basis of strategic alliances and networks. Nevertheless, nuanced thinking, informed choices, and pragmatism, are essential in these high stakes’ dynamics.

Afterall, a seminal historical lesson from the 1791 French Constitution establishes that “sovereignty is one, indivisible, unalienable and imprescriptible; it belongs to the Nation; no group can attribute sovereignty to itself nor can an individual arrogate it to himself.’’

It is upon this foundational premise that modern states draw the principle of national sovereignty or ultimate self-determination and self-governing powers that’s crystallized in written and unwritten constitutions around the world to date. Analytical purchase for that proposition is therefore established by sovereign Independence.

Simply put, an independent sovereign state can do anything lawful in domestic and international law to align, defend, project, realign and safeguard its national interests, exclusively on its own terms. For instance, the preamble to Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution affirms that “the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria having firmly and solemnly resolved to live in unity and harmony as one…sovereign Nation…provide for a Constitution for the purpose of promoting good government and the welfare of all persons…”

Section 1 (1) therein establishes the principle of constitutional supremacy and its commanding binding application. Similar provisions are established in the 1789 American Constitution, the 1982 Canadian Constitution, and the 1950 Indian Constitution inter alia.

The nostrum, Make America Great Again, is the ideological policy heartbeat of Trumpism and simply means American hegemony and global leadership in all matters of domestic and foreign policy, which by its very definition, encompasses artificial intelligence and technological superiority, biosciences, economics, immigration, global defence, trade relations, national security, research and development etc.

Taken to its logical conclusion, American hegemony or MAGA, of necessity, is a zero-sum game. Because, the pre-eminence of the United States is the incapacity or leadership inertia of another state. What then is the point of a country’s sovereignty and political independence?

And nowhere is this strategic dilemma for independent sovereign nations more striking than in Donald Trump’s calls in December 2024 for: (1) Canada, an independent nation, to become the 51st state of the United States of America; (2) Greenland, which is part and parcel of Danish territory to become an American territory; and (3) American hegemony over the Panama Canal, which falls within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the central American sovereign nation of Panama.

Whether or not these claims are grounded in robust policy analysis is unimportant. However, the compelling point is that they signal an intention of policy direction by the incoming administration and the potential for territorial expansion. Again, given American pre-eminence, it would be extremely naïve to jump to the conclusion that these claims constitute innocuous political sabre-rattling.

Regarding Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, (BRICS) and enthusiasts like Nigeria, one of the key policy objectives is to ultimately de-emphasise the use of the US dollar in their transactions of the basis of their strategic economic interests.

At present, there are an additional four member countries which include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, together called BRICS+. So far, over 30 countries have either independently applied to join BRICS or been officially invited to join in some capacity. BRICS account for over 40 per cent of global population of approximately 8.2 million people, and 25 per cent of the global economy, which is roughly $110 trillion. Strategically, BRICS seek to foundationally alter American global economic hegemony.

For instance, multilateral institutions like the UN Security Council, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the G7, the World Trade Organisation, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, et al, are, it is contended by BRICS and its advocates, disproportionately pro-US/Western interests; a phenomenon detrimental to the Global South/ developing countries.

Russian President, Vladmir Putin, emphasised as much at the 2023 BRICS Summit in South Africa, where he argued that “neoliberalism” was undermining traditional values in developing nations and endangered multipolar global order. Putin went further by stressing at the BRICS 2024 Summit in Kazan, Russia, that: “the transition to a more just international system is not easy.

Its development is being hampered by forces whose thinking and actions continue to be aimed at dominating everything and everyone. Under the guise of a rules-based order they are imposing on the world, they are actually attempting to contain growing competition and prevent the independent development of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that they cannot control.”

Thus, exercising its full sovereignty, and the projection of its geoeconomic interests, Nigeria is reactivating robust bilateral trade links with France, much to the chagrin of Nigeria’s northern Francophone neighbour, Niger! Plus, Nigeria’s sovereignty is reaffirmed by its renewed currency swap deal with China with the aim of crystallising bilateral trade between both nations in a $2 billion (15 billion yuan) deal on December 27, 2024. The currency compact affords naira liquidity to Chinese investors and yuan liquidity to Nigerian entrepreneurs, the net effect of which is to diminish reliance on the U.S. dollar!

Now then, Donald Trump in the same month expressly opined that the US requires: “a commitment from these countries that they will neither create a new BRICS currency, nor back any other currency to replace the mighty U.S. dollar or, they will face 100% tariffs, and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy”.

So, the stage is presumably set for an economic debacle in the battle for sovereignty on the one hand and the advancement of MAGA, on the other. Then again, it is for organisations like the World Trade Organisation to intermediate, facilitate, and enhance effective global trade policies!

To conclude, it is reasonably envisaged that pragmatic realpolitik will prevail. Afterall, no country, however, powerful, exercises absolute powers in all global spheres. Inevitably, strategic alliances, networks, and partnerships will remain essential ingredients of the collaborative interdependencies which underpin the modus operandi on an evidently imperfect global order. Nevertheless, the smart money is on constructive engagement with the states, and naturally, the incoming U.S. Administration, irrespective of the policy choices activated by sovereigns.

Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria, and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development.