Diplomacy, Sovereignty, and the Global South Dilemma, by Collins Nweke

Sovereignty is not defended in moments of outrage but through institutions that command credibility. In this reflective piece, Collins Nweke contrasts Belgium’s calm, rule-bound response to diplomatic overreach with the more turbulent patterns often seen in the Global South. The lesson is not escalation or silence; it is structure. For Nigeria, institutional consistency may prove a stronger shield than rhetorical nationalism.

Sovereignty is not asserted in moments of outrage. It is earned and defended through institutions that speak with authority, restraint, and consistency. Recent diplomatic overreach by a foreign envoy in Brussels provides a timely reminder of this truth. Belgium’s response, calm yet firm, stands in contrast to the often-turbulent ways in which similar interventions unfold in many parts of the Global South, including Nigeria. 

The episode offers a useful mirror: one that reflects not just diplomatic boundaries, but the deeper question of institutional credibility. Diplomatic interference is inevitable; chaos in response is not. Belgium’s quiet firmness highlights the institutional gaps Nigeria must confront if its sovereignty is to be defended in a structural rather than an emotional way.

Belgium’s Institutional Reflexes: Calm, Constitutional, and Clear

When Belgium confronted the intrusive public commentary of a foreign ambassador, it did so in a manner that was neither theatrical nor defensive. The Prime Minister reiterated the limits of a diplomat’s role. The Foreign Ministry summoned the envoy, not to make headlines, but to restate boundaries grounded firmly in international law. No Belgian minister attempted to explain or reinterpret the judiciary, because none possesses the authority to do so.

This is how mature institutions respond. Courts stand independently. Prosecutors operate without political choreography. Diplomacy is anchored in procedure, not provocation. Sovereignty is defended not through performance, but through the quiet confidence of institutions that require no rhetorical protection.

Nigeria’s Complex Reality

Nigeria’s context is markedly different. Diplomats’ public commentary often enters a politically combustible environment, one where institutions are still consolidating, trust in authority is uneven, and legitimacy is frequently contested. Statements by foreign envoys can rapidly become ammunition in domestic political battles.

The deeper issue, however, lies in how Nigerian institutions respond. Too often, diplomatic interference is:

1. selectively welcomed when politically convenient,
2. loudly condemned when it favours an opponent, and 
3. or ignored entirely when awkward to address.

These inconsistent responses do not deter interference; they invite it. They neither clarify boundaries nor strengthen the institutional backbone required to enforce them.

The Double Bind of the Global South

Nigeria, like many Global South democracies, faces a persistent dilemma. It seeks economic partnerships, diplomatic goodwill, and international investment. Yet it risks internalising the notion that external endorsement substitutes for domestic legitimacy.

Belgium does not grapple with such asymmetries. Its sovereignty is assumed. Nigeria is frequently tested. The same diplomatic behaviour that barely registers in Brussels can feel deeply intrusive in Abuja. This asymmetry makes the task of Nigerian leadership more delicate: defending sovereignty without slipping into defensive nationalism.

The Lesson Is Not Silence But Structure

Belgium’s conduct does not offer Nigeria a template for imitation, but a model for adaptation. Three structural lessons stand out:

1. Early Firmness Matters

Diplomatic boundaries should be restated promptly, privately, and formally, not through media surrogates or partisan spokespersons. Delay converts clarity into confusion.

2. Institutions, Not Individuals, Should Respond

When diplomats comment on judicial or electoral matters, responses must come only from constitutionally empowered institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or INEC, not from political actors seeking short-term advantage.

3. Consequences Must Be Graduated and Credible

Diplomacy is not binary. Between silence and expulsion lies a spectrum of tools: demarches, formal clarifications, restricted engagement, or quiet recall requests.

Restraint is not weakness; inconsistency is.

Why External Overreach Thrives

There is an uncomfortable truth Nigeria must confront: external interference finds fertile ground where internal institutions appear weak, politicised, or vulnerable. Diplomatic protests cannot compensate for:

1. courts perceived as partisan,
2. electoral bodies seen as compromised, and 
3. regulators are susceptible to political pressure.

Belgium’s institutions do not require a dramatic defense because their credibility defends them. Nigeria must strive for the same: sovereignty abroad begins with institutional legitimacy at home.

In a recent opinion editorial titled Defending Belgian Sovereignty without escalation when Allies Overstep, I argued that neither silence nor escalation is an option, providing a three-point structured, principled response pathways.

Nigeria‑Specific Policy Pathways

1. Judicial Independence as Sovereignty’s Frontline

• Foreign missions must never comment on live judicial matters.
• Responses to such commentary should come only from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or other constitutionally empowered bodies.
• Judges should be shielded from political pressure amplified by foreign commentary.
• Credibility, once strengthened, becomes deterrence.

2. Elections: Engagement Without Externalisation

• Election observation is legitimate; public verdicts by foreign diplomats are not.
• Responses to electoral commentary must flow through INEC and the courts, not partisan actors.
• Outrage must be consistent, not selective.

3. Re‑Anchoring Diplomacy in Procedure

• Sensitive matters should be channelled through formal diplomatic processes, not social media.
• Nigeria should make use of graduated responses without theatrics or ambivalence.
• Consistency is power. Loud protest followed by quiet accommodation weakens Nigeria’s diplomatic posture.

Allies Are Not Adversaries, But They Are Not Governors Either

This is not an argument for hostility toward allies. Partnerships thrive when boundaries are respected. But friendship does not confer supervisory authority. Foreign envoys are partners, not referees of domestic political contests.

Belgium’s example demonstrates that sovereignty is not defended by volume but by the credibility of institutions. Nigeria would do well to internalise this lesson structurally, not episodically.

In the final analysis, sovereignty must play out without spectacle. Allies will sometimes test boundaries; this is not new. What matters is how states respond. Outrage is not authority. Loudness is not leverage. The most enduring defense of sovereignty rests on institutions that command confidence at home and legitimacy abroad.

When courts are independent, elections credible, and diplomacy rule-bound, external overreach loses its potency. Ultimately, sovereignty requires no defense when institutions are strong enough to defend themselves.

About the AUTHOR