Editorial: When Diplomacy Comes Before Citizens

When Diplomacy Comes Before Citizens

The recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa have once again exposed a painful reality in African geopolitics. The gap between the idea of African brotherhood and the experiences of ordinary Africans are different.

For nearly two weeks, migrants from Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, and other African countries faced intimidation, harassment, displacement, and violence as anti-migrant groups blamed foreigners for unemployment, crime, and poor public services. South African authorities condemned the attacks, while President Cyril Ramaphosa attributed growing tensions to poverty and high unemployment. Yet for many victims, these explanations offered little comfort as businesses were destroyed and lives disrupted.

What has generated particular debate in Nigeria is not only the attacks themselves but also the Federal Government's response. While countries such as Ghana moved quickly to document losses, engage international institutions, and facilitate the return of their citizens, many Nigerians complained that they were initially left to fend for themselves, with some reportedly paying their own transportation costs to leave dangerous areas. It was only after sustained public pressure that the first batch of 258 Nigerians was evacuated to Lagos on June 12.

On Arise TV, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye, reminded viewers of Nigeria's historic support for South Africa during the anti-apartheid struggle and acknowledged that poverty, unemployment, and migration pressures partly fuel current tensions. His comments reflected an important truth: xenophobia cannot be separated from South Africa's economic challenges. However, understanding the causes of xenophobia must never become an excuse for tolerating it.

The controversy runs deeper because many Nigerians view South Africa through the lens of history. Nigeria was among the strongest supporters of the anti-apartheid movement, providing diplomatic leadership, financial assistance, scholarships, and political pressure against the apartheid regime. For many, today's hostility feels like a betrayal of a shared African struggle that was supposed to unite, not divide, the continent.

The situation has also revealed a growing battle of narratives. Some South Africans argue that migrants are taking jobs, committing crimes, and overwhelming public services. Migrants, on the other hand, argue they are being scapegoated for government failures and economic mismanagement. Across social media, accusations of propaganda, misinformation, and selective reporting have further poisoned relations between Africans who should be partners rather than rivals.

Perhaps the most ironic moment came after South Africa's recent World Cup defeat, when comments from a South African football figure lamenting that fellow Africans did not support the team because they were "brothers" were met with widespread backlash online. Many Africans responded that solidarity cannot be demanded on the football pitch while xenophobia persists within the continent.

Ultimately, this crisis is not only a South African problem. It is also a Nigerian foreign policy lesson. Diplomacy remains important, but the first responsibility of any government is the protection of its citizens. A foreign policy that speaks loudly about African unity but responds slowly when citizens are under threat risks losing both credibility and public trust.

African solidarity is meaningful only when it is matched by action. When citizens are in danger abroad, their safety must come before diplomatic caution.

🖋️Mabel Ogunleye 

Editor in Chief