Cultural Diplomacy And Nigeria’s Foreign Policy

Abstract

Man is a measure of his culture. He creates culture and culture creates his orientation to all aspects of his being. As a political animal, this fact shapes the trajectory of his political behaviour and policy choices in profound ways especially in the area of international relations and diplomacy. This is the connecting rod between culture and foreign policy. The aim of this paper is to establish the relationship between culture and foreign policy broadly, and specifically, to interrogate the nexus of culture and the pursuit of Nigeria’s foreign policy in particular. The paper argues that there is a critically dynamic intercourse between culture and foreign policy and the Nigerian experience exudes no less a radiance. The Nigerian government has mobilised both material and immaterial cultural ensembles in public diplomacy as a veritable strategy of pursuing her foreign policy goals and objectives. Philosophically and historically, these cultural values and orientations are embodied forth in the evolutionary and organismic ecologies of the diverse cultural heritage of the Nigerian peoples; emblematically it has been emblazoned by various genres of artistic expressions such as music, literature, performing arts, fine arts among others. The use of culture as a foreign policy strategy has accreted innumerable benefits on Nigeria and also given her tremendous goodwill in the community of nations. Nigeria’s cultural diplomacy is supported with ancillary foreign policy instrumentalities thus enabling its seamless utility. The paper recommends that Nigeria should institutionalise a public diplomacy agency; by so doing she would stand in better stead to continue to reap the benefits of mainstreaming culture in her foreign policy pursuits.

Introduction

Culture is the major organising principle of human life. Everything about homo sapiens invariably radiates cultural orientation and practices. In the contemporary international political system particularly, the impact of culture on policy choices and organisation is on the ascendancy. It is for this reason that culture has become a major factor in global decision-making process. This has therefore made nation-states, more than ever before, more conscious of mobilising cultural resources in their foreign policy pursuits. Culture is a soft element of diplomacy and as such its impact on the international system is not as immediately felt as the hard elements. Nonetheless, its pulsating dynamics have been a major social cement in gluing the bounds of international understanding, peace, cooperation and the pursuit of the ideals of humanism.

International relations in simple terms is the sum total of the relations that takes place between nations-states. These relations cut across all the sectors of human life: political, economic, cultural, social, intellectual, and so on. And these sectors are influenced by a potpourri of historical and evolutionary factors that are unique to the various nations-states. Culture particularly shapes the mode of human production and consumption of values; therefore, it is critical in creating an enabling ambience for corporate mutual understanding and peace that conduces to the realisation of the goals and objectives of global peace and security. It is for this reason that cultural forces have become critical in world affairs (Young, 1993; Mazrui 1990).

Nigeria clearly understands the imperative of culture as an instrumentality of foreign relations (Ofoegbu, 1980). In view of this understanding, the Nigerian government has integrated culture into her foreign policy pursuits. The place of culture in Nigeria’s international affairs is enshrined in her national cultural policy (National Cultural Policy 1988). The policy calls for the mobilisation of all genres—music, literature, theatre, media, etc—in cultural and public diplomacy initiatives. The integration of Nigeria’s foreign policy and culture has drawn the intellectual attention of scholars of international relations especially of Nigerian foreign policy (Ameh, 2011; Adefuye 1992; Pine 2019).

From all the available body of evidences, Nigeria’s cultural heritage embodied in her heterogeneity has been central in the pursuit of her foreign policy. Nigeria has mobilised to effective use her cultural values thereby facilitating the realisation of the cultural foreign policy objectives. (Timothy-Asobele 2002; Pine, 2014). Studies have shown how, for example, the Tiv puppet theatre has been deployed as an agency of cultural diplomacy and the good will and soft power gains Nigeria has accreted on its account (Pine, 2014; Tingir, 2018). Nigerian music, cuisines, pidgin language, literary distinctions and academic excellence have continued to be globally admired and appreciated. It is the case that Nigeria’s excellence in the various genres of art have provided soft landing for the ugly oddities that Nigeria has come to be associated with such as scam letters, corruption and plethora of dissembling antics to hoodwink unsuspecting persons especially internationally.

Nigeria is not an exception to the use of culture in the pursuit of her foreign policy objectives. Almost all countries that possess the capacity do; especially through the agency of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is a critical element in contemporary international relations. It is used in the amelioration of cultural tensions (Appleby 1998; Beyer 1994; Fox and Sandler 2004; Fabrycky 2005; Hansen 2006; Wuthnow and Lewis 2008). In most cases, advanced countries have institutionalised public diplomacy platforms to facilitate their cultural diplomacy strategies. For the U.S.A., it is United States Information Agency; Germany, Goethe-Institut; Japan, Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA); Great Britain, British Council; Canada, Canada International Development Agency (CIDA). Through the instrumentalities of these various agencies, nation-states are always striving to project their values and ideas unto the international scene. The advent of Information Communication Technology (ICT) with its spiralling force and energy has hastened the acceleration of cultural globalisation inestimably.

Culture can therefore be said to be the handmaiden of contemporary diplomacy. This chimes with the postulation of Adefuye (1992, p.3) that, ‘indeed, the manner of the formulation and implementation of a country’s foreign policy is considerably influenced by the nature of its culture.’ Even though Nigeria has no distinct institutional entity to pursue her cultural diplomacy agenda, she has continued to make creative use of other cultural ideologies and agencies. Some notable platforms are United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, (UNESCO); African Union (AU); Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS); Second Black Festival of Arts and Culture (FESTAC); Pan-Africanism; National Troupe, States’ Arts Council, etc. Given this background, therefore, this paper looks at the Nigerian experience in culture and diplomacy.

Culture and Foreign Policy: Theoretical and Conceptual Epistemology

What is culture? The answer to this cannot be said with any iota of conceptual and theoretical precision. Like any other concept in the social sciences, it is definitionally multitudinous in range and scope. What it is varies across definitional frontiers. Kroeber and Kluckhon (1952) have collected a truck load of definitions of culture, and yet, what it is, continues to mutate ad nauseam; making White to contend that (1975) ‘..it is unjustifiable to say that such and such is culture; we can only say ‘this is the way I use the word.’ It is for this that White (1975) and his likes had proposed culturology as the scientific study of culture in the wont of linguistics for the study of language; psychology, for human behaviour; biology, for living organism. While not discountenancing the methodological, theoretical and didactical existentialism of culturology, we are persuaded that the idea of the non-definitionality of culture appears extreme.

Culture is the measure of man. It is organismic and dynamic. It is interactive; it is meta-phenomenal, forming new permutations, combinations, and syntheses. As Durkheim (cited in White 1952, p.6) contends, culture attracts social facts and cultural traits that attract each other, repel each other, unite, divide themselves and multiply. For the purpose of this paper, we would look at culture in its sociological and anthropological tradition. According to Otite and Ogionwo (2006, p. 30) scientifically, anthropologically and sociologically speaking, and drawing intellectual inspiration from E. B. Tylor, ‘…culture is defined as the complex whole of man’s acquisition of knowledge, morals, belief, art, custom technology, etc., which are shared and transmuted from generation to generation.’ By the virtue of this definition, it is decipherable that culture has both material and non-material properties. Material properties of culture include but not limited to products of technology, art, and so on that are concrete such as crafts, houses, cooking utensils. On the other hand, the non-material properties of culture include philosophy, language, values, morals, knowledge.

Culture is created within a given social ecology. It defines the worldview, traits, and orientations of a people. It is self-reproducing; because it is propagated through the instrumentality of intergenerational and intragenerational transmissions. And because we are born out of specific social-cultural ecologies, there are varieties of cultural systems and no one cultural system is superior to the other; it is this allowance for divergences in cultural ideation that lend credence to the notion of cultural relativity. Notwithstanding, cultures change as a result of forces of social change. It is for this that we alluded to the organismic character of culture. Change as it may be the stump continues to persist and radiate its cultural efflorescence. Culture is the oil that lubricates the wheel of sustainable human relations; it creates understanding, love, corporation and staves off the virus of conflict and misunderstanding. It is these idealistic values of peace, love, unity and promotion of the values of humanity that nation-states involved in the international system strive to project through the cross-fertilization of ideas.

Culture is therefore central to the understanding and interpretation of contemporary international system. Culture, to adopt the classification of Nye (1990; p.2004) belongs to soft power, following his classification of power into hard and soft. The soft component of power rests on suasions and diplomacy. Therefore, the deployment of culture in international relations is dubbed cultural diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy deals with the seamless flow of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture across national frontiers with the view of engendering human understanding and peace (Cumming cited in Luke and Kersel 2013). Cultural diplomacy has been adopted as a major strategy of international relations.

The major instrumentality that nation-states use in the pursuit of their cultural diplomacy initiative is the laundering of their corporate image through the instrumentality of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy involves the institutionalisation of agencies as frameworks of cultural engagements in the community of nations in order to accrete goodwill, good image, and propagate her cultural ethos and values. Some institutionalised public diplomacy institutions operated by advanced countries are: U.S.A., United States Information Service; Germany, Goethe-Institut; Japan, Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA); France, Alliance Francaise; Great Britain, British Council; Canada, Canada International Development Agency (CIDA). It goes without saying, therefore, that culture is the handmaiden of contemporary foreign policy pursuit of nations-states.

What is foreign policy? If international relations be those differing forms of relationships that take place across the national frontiers of nation-states, foreign policy is the philosophical principles that guide the nature and mode of conduct of each nation-state in the international system. In other words, it is the philosophical touch that shines the light for any nation-state to clearly see and navigate her path in the realpolitik ecology of the international political system. In arriving at the issues that would define the trajectory of a nation-state’s foreign policy vision, a plethora of issues are given fundamental consideration. Such issues include but are not limited to historical factors, political considerations, economic issues, culture, ideology, technology, and military.

The viability and sustainability of these factors are critical to the success of a country’s foreign policy drive. The economic and military prowess of a country, for instance, is a major determinant of the virility and energetic drive of her foreign policy pursuit. At any given moment in a country’s pursuit of her foreign policy, her national interests, sovereignty, corporate integrity and survival is at the centre of its exertions. National interests to be apt are those body of interests that are basic and fundamental to the development of a country and they criss-cross the political, economic, geographical, social and cultural terrains. These interests are non-negotiable; and always almost, nation-states are ready to seek recourse to the last resort—war, perhaps—in the defence of these interests.

Nigeria, no less, has been actively engaged in her foreign policy pursuits to preserve her national interests. What is at the core of Nigeria’s national interests? According to erstwhile military president of Nigeria, Ibrahim Babangida (cited in Akinboye, 1999 p.366) he conceptualised Nigerian national interests in these words: ‘Nigeria’s national interest can be defined as predicated on the nation’s military, economic, political and social security. Anything that will enhance the capacity of Nigerians to defend their national security must be seen as being their interest. Anything that promotes Nigeria’s economic growth and development is the national interest. Anything that will make Nigeria politically stable is also in the national interest.’

Culture is at the centre of Nigeria’s national development. For this reason, it is one of the critical national interests. The place and importance of culture in Nigeria’s national development is captured in the National Cultural Policy (1988). It says in section 1.4:

When therefore we talk of self-reliance, self-sufficiency and a national identity as the core of our national development objectives, we are referring to culture as the fountain spring of all policies whether educational, social, political or economical. The strategies of national development would thus depend on the understanding of the cultures, the adaptation of its elements for political, educational and economic development, as well as its strategies for social integration and development.

Culture and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy

The tangential points that embrangles culture and Nigeria’s foreign policy inheres in both the foreign and cultural objectives of Nigeria. First, let’s outline the objectives of Nigeria’s cultural policy as contained in Section Three (3;3-1 to 3-8):

3.1 The policy shall serve to mobilise and motivate the people by disseminating and propagating ideas which promote national pride, solidarity and consciousness;

3.2. The policy shall serve to evolve from our plurality, a national culture, the stamp of which will be reflected in African and world affairs;

3.3. The policy shall promote an educational system that motivates and stimulates creativity and draws largely on our tradition and values, namely: respect for humanity and human dignity, for legitimate authority and the dignity of labour, and respect for positive Nigerian moral and religious values;

3.4. The policy shall promote creativity in the fields of arts, science and technology, ensure the continuity of traditional skills and sports and their progressive updating to serve modern development needs as our contribution to world growth of culture and ideas;

3.5. The policy shall establish a code of behaviour compatible with our tradition of humanism and a disciplined moral society;

3.6. The policy shall sustain environmental and social conditions which enhance the quality of life, produce responsible citizenship and an ordered society;

3.7. The policy shall seek to enhance the efficient management of national resources through the transformation of the indigenous technology, design-resources and skills; and

3.8. The policy shall enhance national self-reliance and self-sufficiency, and reflect our cultural heritage and national aspiration in the process of industralisation.

In terms of foreign policy, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria spells out the objectives of Nigerian foreign policy in Section Nineteen (19; a-e)

Promotion and protection of national interest;
Promotion of African integration and support for African unity;
Promotion of international co-operation for the consolidation of universal peace and mutual respect among all nations and elimination of discrimination in all its manifestation;
Respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration, and
Promotion of a just world economic order.

The principles of Nigerian foreign policy have been broken down into underlisted frameworks:

The protection of the sovereign and territorial integrity of the Nigerian state;
The promotion of the economic and social well-being of Nigerians;
The enhancement of Nigeria’s image and status in the world;
The promotion of unity as well as the total political, economic, social and cultural liberation of our country and Africa;
The promotion of the rights of black people and others under colonial domination;
The promotion of international co-operation, conducive to the consolidation of world peace and security, mutual respect and friendship among all peoples and states;
Redressing the imbalance in the international power structures which has tended to frustrate the legitimate aspiration of developing countries;
Respect for the sovereignty, independence and integrity of all nations; and

The promotion of world peace based on the principles of freedom, mutual respect and equality of all persons of the world.

A critical reflection on the objectives of Nigeria’s cultural policy, the constitutionalised foreign policy objectives and the operational principles of Nigeria clearly give an indication that all are intermeshed in philosophic and policy orientation. All of them deal with the promotion of humanity, human rights, economic development and survival, respect for black and African integrity, preservation of world peace and unity. Culture, as we alluded earlier is indeed the measure of man; and by so doing, it promotes the bond of our common humanity and cultural civilisation of man, and Nigeria invariably contributes to the promotion of the the well-being of human civilization and planetary heritage. Given that the enunciations of both our national cultural and foreign policy objectives are interlinked, the question that arises is: how has culture been mainstreamed into Nigeria’s foreign policy?

Firstly, the centre-piece of Nigeria’s foreign policy is Africa centred. The choice of pursuing an Afrocentric foreign policy is borne out of the racial and cultural bonds that unite all the peoples of Africa; this Afrocentricism embraces both the African diaspora and issues that pertain to them. The Afrocentric foreign policy posture of Nigeria draws intellectual inspiration from the ideology of pan-Africanism and the shared historical plights of suffering the pangs of racism, colonialism, imperialism, cultural domination, underdevelopment and innumerable infractions that cannot be mathematically computed.

The colonial project was laid on the racial and ideological foundation that Blacks are inferior to the White. It is for this reason that colonialism was conceptualised as the Whiteman’s burden. Under the arrangement, it was incumbent upon the White race to free Africans from heathenism, savagery, illiteracy, poverty, cultural inferiority and bring them onto the path of civilisation. Africans were said to have not contributed to the progress of human culture and civilization. Europeans have argued that Africa has no civilisation and history, what passes for history are the activities of Europeans in Africa and outside these activities the rest are barbarous gyrations. This consignment to barbarism and inferiorism has affected the psyche and development of Africa and Africans.

One of the fundamental intentions of mobilisation of culture in the pursuit of Nigeria’s foreign policy is to explode this Caucasian myth. One of the ways of the actualisation of this lofty agenda is Nigeria’s involvement and propagation of Nigeria and Africa cultural heritage through the convocation of large-scale cultural activities and carnivals nationally and internationally, the hosting of conferences and workshops to promote African cultures and civilisation. The most emblematic of this being the 1977 staging of the famous second Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture (FESTAC ’77) in Lagos from January to February. Well over hundreds of thousand of peoples of Africa and non-Africans attended this festival. Nigeria at the occasion staged well over two thousand arts exhibition and generally displayed her rich cultural heritage to the world. What is true for Nigeria was also applicable to the various African contingents. At the end of the festival, the Federal Government established the Centre for Black African Arts and Civilization (CBAAC) to warehouse and coordinate researches relating to the cultures and civilizations of peoples of African descent. The Centre has continued to carry out its remit with unabating candour and zeal; providing platforms for cultural engagements between Africans and the rest of the world; and other intellectual endeavours.

Secondly, Nigeria has been in the forefront of countries reputed to be actively involved in multilateral cultural diplomacy. Nigeria’s role in the activities of the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (UNESCO) is unarguable. Nigeria has consistently participated in the organisational life of UNESCO and paid all her dues and diplomatic responsibilities. Nigeria has a permanent mission in UNESCO headquarters. Nigeria was one of the countries that was signatory to the UNESCO declaration of the period 1988-1997 as the World Decade of Cultural Development (WDCD). The objectives of the WDCD among others were; i.) the acknowledgement of the cultural dimension; ii.) broadening and participation in cultural life, and iii.) promotion of international cultures co-operation. As a measure of Nigeria’s commitment to the ideals and values of the WDCD, the Federal Government of Nigeria established, i.) the National Institute for Cultural Orientation (NICO); ii.) the conduct of a national language survey; iii.) the commissioning of a comprehensive history of Nigeria; and, iv.) national gallery of contemporary Arts and a national festival of indigenous children toys, rhymes and games (Adefuye 1992).

Thirdly, Nigeria has used the instrumentality of continental and intra-continental platforms to promote and propagate her foreign policy objectives and by extension the promotion of African cultural heritage. In this respect, Nigeria has been active in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU). Nigeria was central to the creation of ECOWAS as a regional supranational organisation. The driving force of this initiative was to create a platform for West Africans to relate on issues of common sub-continental importance. This active activities of Nigeria at the regional level are also applicable at the AU. Nigeria has been in the forefront of the campaign of peoples of African descent to be inserted into the interstice of global diplomatic institutions and also the putting of issues that ails the wellbeing and development of Africa and its peoples on the global agenda. Nigeria has carried out this agenda with admirable strength and courage. As Adefuye (1992, p.181) observes, ‘…the active leadership of ECOWAS and OAU during which Africans headed the United Nations and Commonwealth Secretariats are concrete proofs… of successful leadership of the Black world.

Fourthly, Nigeria has used the instrumentality of international cultural fiestas as a veritable arena to propagate her culture and civilisation and also promote her national interests. One very good example in this regard is the Tiv Kwagh-Hir puppet theatre. Since its international debut in 1980 at the UNIMA Congress of World Puppetry Festival in Washington D.C. in the U.S.A., it has staged well over thirty international presentation and continues to be in high demand globally. It has been used since then to drive the cultural diplomacy agenda of Nigeria’s foreign policy, promote tourism; reconstruct the battered image of Nigeria; promote Nigerian cultural heritage; promote the cultural and intellectual heritage of Africa, and above all else promote international cooperation, integration, peace and unity.

Fifthly and finally; Nigeria entered into bilateral inter-state cultural and educational agreements with different countries of the world. The first cultural agreement Nigeria entered into was in 1974 with the Arab Republic of Egypt. The agreements have since burgeoned to well over hundred and still counting. The fundamental philosophical essence of these cultural agreements is to mutually encourage and appreciate the cultures and civilisations of contracting parties and in so doing contributing to, ‘the promotion of international co-operation, conducive to the consolidation of world peace and security, mutual respect and friendship among all peoples and states; and, the promotion of world peace based on the principles of freedom, mutual respect and equality of all persons of the world’ which are two cardinal principles of Nigerian foreign policy. Pursuant to this goal, Nigeria has deployed the vast array of her rich cultural heritage especially the music, theatre, visual arts, and literature among many others.

As successful as Nigeria has made use of her cultural resources to pursue her foreign policy objectives one issue that has continued to dog her cultural diplomacy is the absence of an institutional public policy platform. We have given examples of how countries—and this cuts across developed and developing countries—have used the instrumentality of public diplomacy institutions and programmes to vigorously pursue their foreign policy agenda. Studies have shown how public diplomacy has been put to good measure in rebuilding the image of countries (Appleby 1998; Beyer 1994; Fox and Sandler 2004; Fabrycky 2005; Hansen 2006; Wuthnow and Lewis 2008). After the World Trade Centre Bombing on September 11, 2011, for instance, the U.S completely recalibrated her Middle East foreign policy with accent on public diplomacy. It found out that her poor image in the Muslim world according to Fabrycky (2005, p:25) is as a result of the ‘psychological identification of America as the primary engine for globalization and its associated secular values and the widespread assumptions that Muslim living in the U.S. are victims of discrimination.’ The Americans deployed public diplomacy and it has significantly changed the narrative.

In view of this we, recommend the establishment of a Nigeria Cultural and Information Agency (NCIA). It would be an agency under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs specifically concerned with the international propagation and dissemination of information about Nigeria’s peoples, culture and civilization. Nigeria has a surfeit of image crises bordering on social misdemeanors such as internet fraud, advance fee fraud, kidnapping, armed robbery, assassinations, ritual killings and so on. These criminalities have crisscrossed in a complex tapestry to batter Nigeria’s image. Nigeria’s external image is so battered as if to say there is nothing good about Nigeria. And yet, Nigeria is a treasure trove of cultural riches and gifted people. The institutionalization of a public diplomacy platform would be key to the restitution of Nigeria’s image and propagation and promotion of her foreign policy objectives through culture.

Conclusion

This paper set out to establish the place of culture in Nigeria’s foreign policy. In the interrogations it was established that culture is at the centre of the exertion of man and thus permeates all his existential endeavours. In the realm of international relations particularly, culture has been a major instrumentality in the pursuit of the ideals of peace, mutual respect and global understanding and co-operation. These ideals and values are at the heart of the United Nations and other international agencies. Given this importance of culture in contemporary diplomacy, countries across the world have mainstreamed culture into their foreign policy drives. The one major instrumentality that is made use of in this regard is the institutionalisation of public diplomacy agencies. Studies have shown how these agencies have been critical to the public relations and image laundering policies of countries.

Nigeria is not left behind in the inclusion of culture into her foreign policy agenda. The philosophical and ideological foundations of Nigeria’s foreign policy are rooted on cultural and historical factors such African heritage, black consciousness, pan-Africanism, anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism and so on. To actualise her cultural foreign policy objectives, she has made use of international cultural fiestas such as FESTAC; actively engaged with multilateral cultural agencies such as UNESCO; deployed her diplomatic capital within sub-continental and continual African supranational agencies such as ECOWAS and OAU(AU); and entered into so many cultural and educational agreements with many countries which she begun in 1974 with the Arab Republic of Egypt. Nigeria has reaped bountifully from her cultural diplomacy drives.

However, one area that there is a noticeable lacuna in her cultural diplomacy is the lack of an institutionalised public diplomacy platform to engage the international publics. At the moment the responsibility of public diplomacy is thrust in the hands of the information units of the various Nigerian embassies. This approach lacks co-ordination and ideological vision. To ensure that Nigeria maximally benefits from her cultural diplomacy we recommend the establishment of a Nigeria Cultural and Information Agency (NCIA). This agency would be central in the restitution of Nigeria’s international image long battered by the activities of cyber criminals and other petty crimes such as armed robbery, kidnapping, and ritual killings amongst others. In the event, this agency would rebuild Nigeria’s image and present a true picture of Nigeria’s cultural heritage and civilization to the world. By so doing Nigeria would reap maximally from her use of culture as a strategy for the pursuit of foreign policy.

References

Adefuye, A. (1992) Culture and Foreign Policy: The Nigerian Experience Lagos: Nigeria Institute of International Affairs

Akinboye, S. O. (1999) Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. Anifowose and Enemuo ed (1999) Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Publishers

Ameh, M.A. (2011) Culture and Diplomacy: An Analysis of the Impact of Culture on Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. Masters of Science Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Benue State University, Makurdi,

Appleby, R.S. (1998) Religion and Global Affairs: Religious ‘‘militants for peace’’ SAIS Review 18: 38-44 Berger, P. L. The Desecularization of the World: A Global View. Berger, P.L. ed. The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Beyer, J. (2003) Religion and Globalization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Cummings, M.C. (2003) Cultural Diplomacy and United States Government: A Survey Washington D. C.: Centre for Arts and culture

Curtis, M. and Gitleson S. (1976) Israel in the Third World New Brunswick, N. J.: Transactional Books

Fabrycky, D. (2005) U.S. Public Diplomacy and Religion in the Muslim World. Faith & International Affairs, Volume 3, Number 2, Fall

Hansen, E. O. (2006) Religion and Politics in the International System Today New York: Cambridge University Press

Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952) Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethology. Harvard University, Vo.47, No.1 Cambridge, Mass.

Otite, O and W. Ogionwo, (2006) An Introduction to Sociological Studies Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books

Luke, C. and M., Kersel (2013) U.S. Cultural Diplomacy and Archaeology: Soft Power. New York: Routledge

Mazrui, A. A. (1990) Cultural Forces in World Politics New Hampshire: Heinemann

Nye, J. (1990) The Changing Nature of World Power. Political Science Quarterly Vol. 105, No.2

Nye, J. (2004) Soft Power and American Diplomacy. Political Science Quarterly. Vol.119, No.2

National Cultural Policy 1988

Ofoegbu, R. (1980) A Foundation Course in International Relations for African Universities London: George Allen & Unwin

Pine, A. (2014) The Kwagh-hir Puppet Theatre and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: A Critical Appraisal Makurdi Journal of Arts and Culture (MAJAC), Volume 12,

Pine, A. (2015) Franco-African Summit on Boko Haram Terrorism: Some Critical Notes VUNA Journal of Politics and Strategic Studies, Volume 1, Number 2,

Pine, A. (2019) The Impact of Religion on Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Mkar Journal of Politics and Development Vol.1, No.1,

Tingir, J. T. (2018) Culture and Foreign Policy in Nigeria: A Study of the Tiv Kwagh-Hir Puppet Theatre, Masters of Science Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Benue State University, Makurdi,

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Timothy-Asobele, S. J. (2002) Nigerian Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. Lagos: Promocomms Limited

White, L.A. (1975) The Concept of Cultural System: A Key to Understanding Tribes and Nations New York: Columbia University

Wuthnow, R. and Lewis, V. (2008) Religion and Altruistic U.S. Foreign Policy Goals: Evidence from a National Survey of Church Members. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Volume 47, Number 2.

Young, Crawford (1993) The Politics of Cultural Pluralism Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press