Olu Allen
In diplomacy, every trip tells a story. Three trips to the same country in one year tell the wrong one. That is why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to visit Brazil thrice within a single calendar year deserves serious scrutiny.
Strengthening ties with Brazil is not, in itself, problematic.
As South America’s largest economy, a BRICS member, and a global agricultural powerhouse, Brazil offers Nigeria genuine opportunities: ethanol technology for clean energy, agribusiness partnerships to reduce food imports, and industrial linkages that could diversify Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy.
A carefully choreographed state visit to Brasília could have sent a strong message that Nigeria is repositioning beyond its traditional Euro–American orbit.
But diplomacy thrives on balance, not excess. Three presidential visits in one year is not just unusual. It borders on overexposure. In international politics, head-of-state trips are meant to be rare, high-stakes interventions.
Once a president sets the vision, the heavy lifting should be carried out by foreign ministers, ambassadors, and technical envoys. This is how functional states operate: vision at the top, execution by institutions.
By repeatedly flying to Brazil, Tinubu risks weakening that institutional framework. It conveys the impression that Nigerian diplomacy is personality-driven rather than system-driven—that only the president’s presence can move the needle. Investors and foreign governments read such signals carefully.
If progress requires the president himself to unlock deals, what happens in his absence?
Global practice offers perspective. Joe Biden has visited the UK once since assuming office, despite the much-vaunted “special relationship.” Xi Jinping, for all the talk of a “no limits partnership,” did not fly monthly to Moscow even at the height of the Ukraine war.
Emmanuel Macron, with France’s deep ties to West Africa, has not visited Nigeria thrice in any single year, preferring instead to empower his foreign ministry and ECOWAS envoys.
Mature states sustain relationships through empowered diplomats, technical teams, and multilateral platforms like the G20 or the UN General Assembly. Repetition dilutes impact.
The optics are troubling for Nigeria. At home, such repeated trips risk being read as misplaced priorities in a season of economic hardship, where citizens want results, not presidential frequent-flyer miles. Abroad, it signals an over-investment in one bilateral track while other strategic opportunities remain underexplored.
Consider this: Brazil attracted nearly $64 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2023, making it the fourth-largest FDI destination in the world. Nigeria, by contrast, managed only $3.9 billion in the same year—a reminder that symbolism without structure does not move capital.
If Nigeria truly wants to improve its FDI profile, the president’s energy would be better spent leading within Africa—where the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) promises to create the world’s largest single market—or deepening ties with Asia, where economies like Vietnam and Indonesia are becoming global investment magnets.
If Nigeria cannot assert leadership in ECOWAS, drive reforms in the African Union, or negotiate smartly with East Asia’s emerging powers, no amount of shuttling to Brazil will project real influence.
There was a better path. One landmark presidential visit early in the year could have laid the foundation: open the door, set the tone, define the vision.
From there, the foreign minister could have driven technical talks, the trade minister pursued market access, and the ambassador consolidated outcomes.
Then, at year’s end, the president could have returned—not for symbolism, but to sign binding agreements Nigerians can actually feel: trade pacts, investment frameworks, joint ventures, technology transfers.
That is how strategic statecraft is built: vision at the top, execution by institutions, accountability through outcomes.
Without this discipline, Nigeria risks looking reactive, unbalanced, and tethered to the president’s travel schedule rather than a coherent national strategy.
And Nigerians know the difference. They do not measure foreign policy by the number of presidential flights abroad but by the dividends at home—investments, jobs, opportunities.
Respect on the international stage is not earned through frequent trips but through consistent strategy.
In diplomacy, frequency without strategy is noise. Strategy without frequency is silence. What Nigeria needs is harmony.
Allen is writer and educator who resides in Kano. He writes on public affairs and promote good governance.
