Insignificance of Presidential Attendance and Speeches: UNGA as Instrument of Great Power Politics

Bola A. Akinterinwa

In Nigeria, there are two competing schools of thought on ‘Nigeria’s foreign policy behavior towards the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). One school attaches great importance to the usefulness of the UN debate as a tool for the promotion of global peace and security, and particularly to its role in peaceful resolution of crises and conflicts. To a great extent, the arguments of this school cannot be faulted. If we recall the statement of Nigeria’s Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, on October 7, 1960 at the UN, Nigeria’s belief in international organisations as a means of furthering Nigeria’s foreign policy objectives was strong. Prime Minister Balewa showed Nigeria’s preparedness to maintain ties with old friends and the British Commonwealth but refused to routinely align with rigid power blocs. More importantly, he said Nigeria not only desired friendly relations with all nations and active participation in the work of the UN, but also said Africa must not be allowed to become a battle ground for external ideological struggles. Since 1960 to date, Nigeria has always been actively engaged in the activities of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), particularly in the area of UN Peace Support Operations.

The position of the other school of thought does not necessarily negate the arguments of the first school. It only says that the conduct and management of international affairs at the UN emphasizes national protectionism to the detriment of global collective interests; that there are deliberately adopted institutional obstacles over which the non-Nuclear Weapons States have no control. We belong to this school of thought. We strongly believe that the UNGA is nothing more than an instrument of great power politics. The UN preaches democracy that it does not allow within the UN itself. There was the time the United States accounted for almost 50% of UN budget and voluntary contributions. By the time it was becoming difficult for the United States to control the UN, the Washingtonian authorities began to reduce their contributions to what it is today: about 22%. It is against this background that the attendance and non-attendance of Nigerian leader, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) since 2024, and particularly the 81st UNGA, should be discussed and understood.

Presidential Attendance and Speeches

As noted above, if we admit that the UNGA is nothing more than an instrument of great power politics, then the issue of whether to attend the annual summit rituals and participate in the one-week General Debate cannot but be largely a resultant of whether there is something to gain from it. The situation can be likened to Nigeria’s foreign policy concentricism and beneficial concentricism.

Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari, a diplomatist per excellence, scholar, and international functionary, has it that the need for effectiveness in foreign policy implementation requires dividing the entire global environment into spheres of priority. In this regard, he divided the world into four concentric circles in which the innermost is not Nigeria, as often wrongly referred to by some scholars, but Nigeria and contiguous immediate neighbours. In his thinking, the security of Nigeria is largely intertwined with that of the neighbours. Any situation of unrest or crisis in the neighbourhood should be considered as happening in Nigeria and should therefore be quickly nipped in the bud. The second concentric circle is the rest of West Africa, while the third concentric circle is the whole of Africa minus West Africa. The whole world minus Africa is the fourth and the outermost circle. The categorization of the world into four foreign policy operational areas does not imply that foreign policy actions do not cut across the different concentric circles.

Without whiff of doubt, Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji agreed with Professor Gambari but noted the need to underscore what gains are there for Nigerians in each concentric circle. He sees Professor Gambari’s postulation as constructive but which still has to be made beneficial. This is what Ambassador Adeniji’s Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism is all about. When this illustration is factored into the relevance or irrelevance of the UNGA Debate, and whether PBAT should have attended the UNGA, the question remains what is there for Nigeria, through PBAT, to gain or to lose? There are many things to gain and there are nothing to be lost that has the potential to compromise Nigeria’s national sovereignty.

For me, the UNGA is nothing more than an instrument of politics and oppression by the powerful countries. For the weak countries, the UNGA is a platform for debate, not in the sense of arguing for and against, but for declarations that are only self-pleasing. The UNGA is for easing self-made tension and complaining about poor governance and reporting one another for possible sympathy. Most unfortunately, attendance can be quite significant if a President scheduled to speak has a controversial issue. When a President scheduled to speak is perceived to be an enemy, delegations can refuse to attend of even walk out when the delivery of a speech is still on. It is against this background that we should ask why Nigeria’s numero uno, PBAT, attended the 2023 UNGA and has refused to attend in person since then. Was the 2023 session he attended not worth the while? Were there threats to his life?

Let us begin with PBAT’s address at the General Debate of the 78th Session of UNGA on 20th September, 2023. PBAT, as diplomatic tradition requires, first congratulated the UNGA President on his election, his predecessor, His Excellency, Mr. Csaba Korosi, for his able stewardship of the Assembly, and the Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, for his work seeking to forge solutions to humanity’s common challenges.

PBAT drew attention to what he considered as Nigeria’s and African challenges. As he put it then: ‘Many proclamations have been made, yet our troubles remain close at hand. Failures in good governance have hindered Africa. But broken promises, unfair treatment and outright exploitation from abroad have also exacted a heavy toll on our ability to progress.

Given this long history, if this year’s theme is to mean anything at all, it must mean something special and particular to Africa.’ The implications of this short quotation are significant. First is that there have always been proclamation that have not removed the recidivist African problems. Secondly, good governance has not only been playing host to failures, the failures have also been hindering Africa’s progress. Thirdly, and perhaps more disturbingly, PBAT said there were broken promises, unfair treatment and outright exploitation from abroad.

This statement was a manifestation of PBAT’s major concerns. What did he ask for? What should the UNGA be prepared to do in addressing PBAT’s concerns? PBAT told the UNGA that ‘today and for several decades, Africa has been asking for the same level of political commitment and devotion of resource that described the Marshall Plan. We realize that underlying conditions and causes of the economic challenges facing today’s Africa are significantly different from those of post-war Europe.’ When Europeans had industrialo-economic challenges following end of World War II, the Marshall Plan was introduced to assist. But what type of help should be given to Africa?

In PBAT’s view, ‘we are not asking for identical programs and actions. What we seek is an equally firm commitment to partnership. We seek enhanced international cooperation with African nations to achieve the 2030 agenda and Sustainable Development Goals.’ It is against this background and the need for global solidarity that PBAT also made a five-point submission ‘if the whole exercise of the 78th UNGA theme was to be meaningful in terms of impact.

First, as PBAT explained it, ‘if this year’s theme is to have any impact at all, global institutions, other nations and their private sector actors must see African development as a priority, not just for Africa but in their interests as well.’ Second, ‘we must affirm democratic governance as the best guarantor of the sovereign will and well-being of the people. Military coups are wrong, as is any tilted civilian political arrangement that perpetuates injustice.’ Thirdly, the West African ‘entire region is locked in protracted battle against violent extremists. In the turmoil, a dark channel of inhumane commerce has been formed. Along the route, everything is for sale. Men, woman and children are seen as chattel. Yet, thousands risk the Sahara’s hot sand and the Mediterranean’s cold depths in search of a better life. At the same time, mercenaries and extremists with their lethal weapons and vile ideologies invade our region from the north.’ This harmful traffic undermines the peace and stability of an entire region.’

PBAT reminded the international community that ‘the fourth important aspect of global trust and solidarity is to secure the continent’s mineral rich areas from pilfering and conflict. Many such areas have become catacombs of misery and exploitation. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has suffered this for decades, despite the strong UN presence there. The world economy owes the DRC much but gives her very little.’ And fifthly, ‘climate change severely impacts Nigeria and Africa. Northern Nigeria is hounded by desert encroachment on once arable land. Our south is pounded by the rising tide of coastal flooding and erosion. In the middle, the rainy season brings floods that kill and displace multitudes… African nations will fight climate change but must do so on our own terms. To achieve the needed popular consensus, this campaign must accord with overall economic efforts.’

The concluding points of PBAT clearly points to why he might have not shown much interest in participating in the UNGA General Debate. As pointed out by PBAT, to keep faith with the tenets of this world body and the theme of this year’s Assembly, the poverty of nations must end. The pillage of one nation’s resources by the overreach of firms and people of stronger nations must end. The will of the people must be respected. This beauty, generous and forgiving planet must be protected.’ As for Africa, we seek to be neither appendage nor patron. We do not wish to replace old shackles with new ones. Instead, we hope to walk the rich African soil and live under the magnificent African sky free of the wrongs of the past and clear of their associated encumbrances. We desire a prosperous, vibrant democratic living space for our people.’

Put interrogatively, is Nigeria or Africa free from the wrongs of the past? Has Africa stopped being an appendage and patron of the developed world? Has poverty being thrown into the garbage of history? The answers are no. One reason is that the UNGA is nothing more than a talking shop. Action is more often a subject of whims and caprices of the big powers. As a result, there is no big deal in giving undue values to an UNGA that is more compliant with big power politics.

UNGA as Instrument of Great Power Politics

The UNGA is designed to have a character of universality. However, the universality is necessarily neutralized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a problematic. As such, the UNSC has become a primary instrument of power rivalry and geopolitical competition. Put differently, the UNSC has always been suffering from paralysis as a result of frequent use of veto power and shifting coalitions. When the UNSC Permanent Members cannot ensure their mandate of maintaining peace and security, the resultant power rivalry is often taken to the UNGA, the universal platform, in order to legitimize or have justifications for their unilateral actions. In other words, when the UNSC is paralyzed and found wanting, power is shifted to the UNGA where the major powers come up with different narratives and use the UNGA to isolate adversaries. The big powers, particularly the United States, China, and Russia, often lobby for the adoption of UNGA resolutions and support, even if the UNGA resolutions do not have a binding effect.

In this regard, however, there is the factor of the Global South Counter-push, which is militating against the 1945 order. For instance, the clamour for expansion of the UNSC, which has been to no avail, is a manifestation of great power politics. The unending use of the right of veto to protect the national interest, but to the detriment of collective interest, is another expression of great power politics. Blunt refusal by some countries to pay UN assessed dues or using diplomacy to remove a Secretary-General that has the ‘effrontery’ to challenge the big powers cannot but be an expression of power politics.

We noted earlier that whenever the UNSC is paralysed by a great power’s veto, rival powers often use the UNGA to set aside the deadlock and legitimise the coercive actions. The 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolutions was a good illustration of this point. The United States initiated the UNGA Resolution 377A which enabled the UNGA to recommend collective military measures when the Soviet Union was frequently boycotting or vetoing UNSC actions. In the same vein, when Russia vetoed UNSC resolutions condemning its invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its Western allies passed a number of resolutions, such as Resolution ES-11/1) to condemn Russia to ensure the diplomatic isolation of Russia at the global stage.

There is also no disputing the fact that the United States and EU countries often sponsor UNGA resolutions targeting the human rights records of geopolitical adversaries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria. In essence, UNGA has always been the main instrument used to decide which governments are seen as legitimate global actors. It is the UNGA that is used by the United States to lobby against the upgrading of the status of Palestine, but to no avail, as Palestine iss still given the ‘Non-Member Observer State’ status. There is nothing to suggest that foreign policy makers in Nigeria had not reckoned with these happenings. Sending an able Vice-President to UNGA General Debate cannot but be enough in the eyes of PBAT.

Vice-President Kashim Shettima stood in for PBAT at the 79th Session of the UNGA on 25th September 2024 in New York. He drew attention to the recidivist problems of Africa and the UN, underscoring the fact that the guiding pillars of the UN were under threat and that the UN was failing in its mandate. As he put it, ‘the United Nations stands for inclusiveness – anchored on the tripod of peace, sustainable development and human rights… Today, these pillars of our organisation are threatened. They risk being broken by the relentless pursuit of individual national priorities rather than the collective needs of the nations that are assembled here today. While commitment to multilateralism offers us the surest guarantee of global action to address the existential challenges we face, singularity and nationalism are undermining the aspirations towards the peaceful and collective resolution of such challenges.’

More importantly, he recalled that ‘from last year’s summit, and indeed from previous years, we have carried over the numerous challenges of terrorism, armed conflict, inequality, poverty, racial discrimination, human rights abuses, food crises, hunger, irregular migration, piracy, global pandemics, hyper-inflation, nuclear proliferation, grinding debt burden, climate change, and a host of other vexations. The continued manifestation of these challenges testifies to our failings rather than to any lofty achievements on our part. Billions of dollars are being committed to the prosecution of wars and the fanning of the embers of conflict.’ Can this not be a good reason for not wanting to be part of UN failings?

Nigeria’s and African problems are not different. Consequently, Vice-President Shettima could not but expect that ‘the adoption of the “Pact for the Future” will change the narrative, reposition economies and translate into concrete measures that provide solutions to the challenges faced by developing and least developed countries…’ He reiterated ‘the call by countries, especially of the global South, for reform of the international financial architecture and promotion of a rules-based, non-discriminatory, open, fair, inclusive, equitable and transparent multilateral trading system.’ His conclusion and hope that the ‘deliberations this year will result in solutions that would address our collective challenges and accelerate the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the advancement of peace and human dignity for the sake of present and future generations.,’ simply reminds of policy action remissness of the UNGA.

Again, at the 80th UNGA on 24th September, 2025, the same issues of governance being a problem and also a solution, climate change as a driver of insecurity, global debt burden, summit of the future, need for UN reform, and particularly membership of the expansion of the UNSC, etc., were raised as usual. What was noteworthy was the impression given, consciously or otherwise, that PBAT was not much interested or that the statement was not for PBAT. For example, on the official letter-head of the statement, it is written ‘Statement Delivered by His Excellency, Kashim Shettima, GCON, Vice-President, Federal Republic of Nigeria during the General Debate of the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York.’ No reference was made to PBAT. The Vice-President spoke not as a representative but in his capacity as Vice-President. In the words of the Vice-President, ‘it is, therefore, with profound humility that I stand before you today, as Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to renew this pledge on behalf of my country.’

Without any jot of doubt, he spoke authoritatively on how to strengthen the prospects for peace, development and human rights: ‘Madam President, I want to make four points today to outline how we can do this. One, Nigeria must have a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. This should take place as part of a wider process of institutional reform. Two, we need urgent action to promote sovereign debt relief and access to trade financing. Three, countries that host minerals must benefit from those minerals. And four, the digital divide must close. As our friend, the Secretary General, has said: ‘A.I. must stand for ‘Africa Included.’

Finally, as Vice-President Shettima put it at the ongoing 81st session on behalf of PBAT, ‘the persistence of conflict across the world recalls the purpose for which the United Nations was founded: to spare succeeding generations the devastation of war. We must therefore return to the founding principles of dialogue, mutual respect and collective responsibility. Nigeria stands by the Charter and its promise of a world in which diplomacy prevails over coercion, cooperation over isolation and international law over the arbitrary exercise of power.’ More importantly, ‘Nigeria demands, in accordance with the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, at least two permanent seats for Africa, with all the rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including the veto for as long as it exists, and five non-permanent seats in total. The authority to speak for humanity carries an obligation to represent it’.

Even if PBAT has been talking about the same issues every year, he cannot be faulted because the theme of every UNGA also revolves around the same problematic. In 2023, the theme of the 78th session was ‘re-building trust and reigniting global solidarity: Accelerating action on the 2030 Agenda and Its Sustainable Development Goals towards peace, prosperity, progress and sustainability for all.’ The 79th UNGA session in 2024 had as its theme ‘leaving no one behind: acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development and human dignity for present and future generations.’ In 2025, the 80th session had ‘better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights.’ This year, 2026, it is “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: a United Nations that delivers for all.” All these themes underscore the need for multilateralism, maintenance of international peace and security, cooperation and interdependence. And true enough, the weak countries want multilateralism while the big powers are underscoring bilateralism. The weak countries want expansion of the UNSC and general UN reform but they do not have any institutional right to undo Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter which require the unanimity of purpose of the veto powers to be able to amend, review, revise, alter or modify the UN Charter. As such, the UNGA is a good platform for Africa’s hide and seek children game. With this type of situational reality at the UN, considering that the Vice-President has always represented well, and because Nigeria must not allow herself to be pushed around by countries that want to undermine Nigeria, especially in terms of a permanent seat for Nigeria, PBAT ought to be commended for staying above the political intrigues that presidential attendance and speeches entail.