With Olukayode Ajulo
Gunboat diplomacy evokes powerful imagery of naval strength and military might, representing a historical practice where nations pursue foreign policy objectives through the threat of force.
This method has been wielded to assert dominance, safeguard economic interests and manipulate political outcomes in distant lands, often reflecting a complex interplay of coercion and negotiation.
Judicial pronouncements on gunboat diplomacy are relatively rare, as this concept often relates more to political and military strategies than to strict legal frameworks. International Court of Justice (ICJ) does not explicitly address “gunboat diplomacy,” since most of this esteemed tribunal’s rulings often touch on the legality of the use of force and military interventions. For instance, the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons emphasises the principles of necessity and proportionality in the use of force, which can relate to coercive strategies like gunboat diplomacy.
In today’s world, the relevance of gunboat diplomacy has resurfaced with alarming urgency, particularly highlighted by the United States’ designation of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern”. This significant move, alongside directives for potential military intervention, signals a troubling shift in U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding terrorism and religious persecution.
During the Trump administration, Nigeria’s dire challenges-rampant terrorism and violence against religious minorities-were thrust into the global spotlight. The U.S. designation aims to confront these crises, but the rhetoric surrounding military action-characterised as “fast, vicious, and sweet”reveals a readiness to engage forcefully rather than seek collaborative solutions which is tantamount to the United Nations Charter, particularly Articles 2(4) and 51, which addresses the prohibition of the use of force and the right to self-defence. The interpretation of these articles can be applied to evaluate actions that resemble gunboat diplomacy, especially if they involve coercive military presence.
Historically, gunboat diplomacy has compelled weaker states to comply without bloodshed, as seen in the U.S. expedition led by Commodore Matthew Perry to Japan in the 1850s or Britain’s blockade of Venezuela in the early 1900s. Such actions often resulted in unequal treaties that undermined national sovereignty and left lasting scars on political landscapes.
Despite the decline in overt military force since the mid-20th century, the underlying principle of using naval power to influence foreign policy persists today. Modern navies maintain a posture of readiness to reassure allies and deter adversaries, yet these tactics can still be perceived as coercive, as illustrated by British military actions in Kuwait in 1961.
The Principle of Non-Intervention
In the case of Nicaragua vs. United States (1986), the ICJ ruled that the U.S. had violated international law by using military force against Nicaragua, which included actions that could be classified as gunboat diplomacy. The Court emphasized the need for states to respect the sovereignty of others and refrain from coercive actions. Furthermore, in DRC V. Uganda (2005), the Court noted that the Principle of non-intervention preserves the right of every Sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference; the Court noted that Nicaragua had made it clear that the principle of non-intervention prohibits a state from interfering in the domestic affairs of others.
International Law strongly emphasises the principle of non-intervention, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any state. Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter also reinforces this notion, asserting that states should refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of others.
The historical context, as articulated by legal scholars like Vattel, underscores the importance of respecting state sovereignty, particularly in nations like Nigeria where external pressures can exacerbate existing tensions rather than resolve them in view of the rich tapestry of ethnic and cultural diversity, external military involvement could incite further divisions and strife, complicating an already delicate situation. The legacy of past interventions serves as a cautionary tale against repeating these mistakes.
The implications of the U.S. stance are profound and multifaceted. While it signals a commitment to combat terrorism, it risks escalating tensions and inciting resentment among local populations. Critics argue that a militarised approach endangers long-term stability, as history shows that military interventions often yield unintended consequences, leading to prolonged conflict and suffering.
The potential consequences of a proposed military approach in Nigeria are significant. Increased violence could provoke retaliation from terrorist groups, complicating regional dynamics and straining U.S.-Nigeria relations. Military actions might foster resentment, triggering nationalistic sentiments that could further undermine diplomatic efforts.
Moreover, such interventions could exacerbate humanitarian crises, disrupting social structures and hindering development. Military presence may weaken local governance, allowing extremist groups to exploit power vacuums, while increased foreign intervention could inadvertently promote corruption, diverting essential resources from services that Nigerians desperately need.
In contrast, international cooperation and collaboration offers a more promising and sustainable way to address the crisis in Nigeria. By focusing on holistic solutions that tackle the root causes of conflict—such as poverty and political instability—collaborative efforts can yield more effective outcomes. Pooling resources and expertise from multiple nations enhances intervention effectiveness while empowering local communities to confront their own challenges.
Cooperative initiatives build trust and legitimacy, as they are often perceived as less intrusive than military actions, thereby alleviating feelings of resentment toward foreign involvement. Engaging regional organisations like ECOWAS can create robust frameworks for addressing transnational threats, fostering stability across borders.
Furthermore, prioritising economic development through international partnerships can create jobs and improve living conditions, diminishing the allure of extremist ideologies. Coordinated humanitarian responses ensure that aid reaches those in need swiftly, addressing both immediate relief and long-term stability.
Lastly, sustainable international cooperation can spearhead initiatives that promote human rights and protect vulnerable populations, fostering accountability and ensuring that human rights are upheld in response efforts.
In conclusion, while the prospect of military intervention poses significant risks and potential for destabilisation, international cooperation on the other hand, presents a compelling alternative. By embracing collaborative strategies that prioritise diplomacy and strengthening and empowerment of local institutional systems towards achieving sustainability, we can pave the way for lasting peace and development in Nigeria.
A Call for International Cooperation
Let us not underestimate the transformative power of international cooperation. By uniting in collaborative efforts, the United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, can forge effective, sustainable solutions to Nigeria’s crisis, prioritising holistic approaches that empower local communities and foster long-term stability. Together, the two great nations can build a more peaceful and prosperous future for Nigeria and beyond.
Dr. Ajulo, OON, SAN, is the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State, and Chairman, Board of Trustees, Egalitarian Mission for Africa (EMA).