Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis (CFP) of Nigeria and South Africa: An overview

IDAHOSA Stephen Osaherumwen ORCID: 0000-0002-9085-0070 Doctor of History Idahosa Stephen Osaherumwen PhD in History (International Relations and Foreign Policy), Theory and History of international Relations Department, RUDN University Tafawa Balewa, Nigeria, Abuja, Cbd street, idahosa8@gmail.com

Egezi Blessing Chimanpa ORCID: 0000-0003-3075-9950 PhD Student, Department of Africa and Arabic Studies, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya str., 1 blessingegesi1@gmail.com

Introduction

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision-making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day interactions of different countries, as well as international and nongovernmental organizations.

CFP offers theoretical frameworks that help to capture the “heartbeat” of global and regional politics. Researchers continue to explore “key questions and problems on the causes of state behaviors and their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision-making in comparative perspective” ^[1;2;3].

The field of foreign policy analysis rejects the view that every event is completely unique. Finding patterns is important to reach the end goal of a general understanding and an increased capability for prediction. In other words, we seek to explain the factors that influence not just a specific policy, but state behaviour generally because general knowledge can be used to anticipate future action ^[4]. For example, a case study of Nigeria and South Africa in the formulation of foreign policy and management of deep-rooted and complex conflicts ^[5], will explain some factors of general understanding. Of the essence, is the valuable lessons for governance that CFP also offers ^[3].

Nigeria and South Africa share some similarities in their foreign policies. These include: Regional Leadership: Both Nigeria and South Africa play significant roles in their respective regions. Nigeria is often seen as a leader in West Africa, while South Africa is considered a leader in Southern Africa. They both have a desire to exert influence and promote stability within their regions. Pan-Africanism: Both countries have shown a commitment to the principles of Pan-Africanism. They advocate for African unity, cooperation, and solidarity. Nigeria and South Africa have been actively involved in regional organizations such as the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to promote African integration and address regional challenges. Conflict Resolution: Nigeria and South Africa have been involved in peacekeeping and conflict resolution efforts across the continent. They have contributed troops to various United Nations and African Union peacekeeping missions, demonstrating their commitment to resolving conflicts and maintaining peace in Africa. Economic Diplomacy: Both countries pursue economic diplomacy as part of their foreign policies. They actively engage in trade and investment initiatives with other countries, particularly within Africa. Nigeria and South Africa seek to promote economic cooperation, attract foreign investment, and enhance their trade relationships with other nations. Non-Aligned Foreign Policy: Both Nigeria and South Africa have pursued a non-aligned foreign policy, maintaining relationships with multiple countries and avoiding alignment with any particular bloc or power. They strive to maintain diplomatic relations with a wide range of nations and pursue partnerships based on mutual interests and benefits. It is important to note that while Nigeria and South Africa have similarities in their foreign policies, they also have distinct approaches and priorities based on their unique circumstances and interests.

The development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs. This is not to say that the authors assume all states foreign policies can be explained in exactly the same way. In order to discover similarities and differences across foreign policies, we use “comparative method”. This involves selecting what to examine (in this instance, states and their foreign policies) and determining patterns. It is comparative because it involves comparing two or more states.

Research Questions: What are the determinants factors of Nigeria-South Africa Foreign Policies? The Broad Objective of the Research; is to investigate the nature and direction of Nigeria and South Africa Foreign Policies’, while the Specific Objectives of the Research; is to examine the determinants of the foreign policy behaviour of both states in the midst of their weaknesses and strengths, despite the active nature of Nigeria and South Africa in the international system.

Theory and Methodology of Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis

There are several prominent scholars and researchers who have contributed to the development and promotion of Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis, such as Richard C. Snyder, who is known for his work on decision-making in foreign policy. His book, "Foreign Policy Decision-Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics," published in 1954 and 1962 ^[4;5], laid the foundation for the comparative study of foreign policy. He provides a comprehensive analysis of decision-making in foreign policy. In his book, Snyder presents several arguments that shed light on the complexities and factors influencing foreign policy decisions. On Rational Actor Model: Snyder emphasizes the importance of the Rational Actor Model in understanding foreign policy decision-making. According to this model, decision-makers are rational actors who carefully weigh the costs and benefits of different options before making a choice. Snyder also highlights the significance of Information Processing in foreign policy decision-making. He argues that decision-makers often face limited information and must carefully analyze and interpret the available data to make informed choices. He further discusses the role of Group Dynamics in shaping foreign policy decisions. He explores how individuals within decision-making groups interact, negotiate, and influence each other's perspectives, leading to collective decision outcomes. Snyder examines the influence of Bureaucratic Politics on foreign policy decision-making. He argues that decision-making processes are often influenced by the interests and preferences of various bureaucratic institutions within governments. Snyder delves into the Cognitive Processes involved in foreign policy decision-making. He explores how individuals perceive and interpret information, as well as the biases and cognitive shortcuts that can impact decision outcomes. He emphasizes the importance of Historical Context in understanding foreign policy decisions. He argues that decision-makers often draw on historical experiences and patterns when formulating policies and making choices.

Ole R. Holsti, is another influential scholar that made several arguments regarding Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis. His book, "Crisis, Escalation, War," published in 1972 ^[6], introduced a systematic approach to the study of foreign policy decision-making during times of crisis. Holsti's work has contributed to the understanding of the role of leaders, domestic factors, and international dynamics in shaping foreign policy outcomes. One key argument is that a comparative approach allows for a better understanding of the factors influencing foreign policy decisions. By comparing different countries' foreign policies, we can identify patterns, similarities, and differences that can shed light on the underlying drivers of decision-making. Another argument is that comparative analysis helps to assess the impact of domestic factors on foreign policy. Holsti emphasises the importance of considering domestic political, economic, and social contexts when analyzing foreign policy choices. By comparing how domestic factors shape foreign policies across different countries, we can gain insights into the complex interplay between domestic and international dynamics.

Furthermore, Holsti argues that a comparative approach enhances the ability to identify the causal mechanisms behind foreign policy outcomes. By examining multiple cases, researchers can identify common causal factors and mechanisms that explain why certain policies are adopted or why certain outcomes occur. Lastly, Holsti emphasises the importance of context-specific analysis within comparative foreign policy analysis. He argues that each country has unique historical, cultural, and institutional contexts that shape its foreign policy. Therefore, it is crucial to consider these specific contexts when conducting comparative analysis to avoid oversimplification and ensure accurate and valid conclusions.

James N. Rosenau, known for his contributions to the study of international relations and comparative politics. His book, "Comparative Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays," published in 1969 ^[7], explores different theoretical perspectives and approaches to the analysis of foreign policy. He emphasizes the importance of context and complexity in understanding foreign policy behavior. Helen V. Milner, a leading scholar in the field of International Relations, with a focus on comparative politics and foreign policy. Her work examines the influence of domestic politics and institutions on foreign policy decisions, particularly in democracies ^[8;9;10]. Milner also made significant contributions to the study of trade policy and international economic relations. Valerie M. Hudson ^[11]: Hudson's research focuses on the intersection of gender and international relations, including the study of women in foreign policy decision-making. Her work highlights the importance of gender analysis in understanding foreign policy behavior and its implications.

"Lantis, Jeffrey S., and Ryan Beasley ^[14]. "Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis" is a book that explores the field of comparative foreign policy analysis. Lantis and Beasley provide an overview of the theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and key concepts used in the study of foreign policy from a comparative perspective. They gave an overview of comparative approach to foreign policy analysis, their work posit that it involves examining and comparing the foreign policies of different countries to identify similarities, differences, patterns, and trends. This approach helps to understand how various factors, such as domestic politics, international relations, and historical contexts, shape foreign policy decisions.

Both authors discuss various theoretical frameworks used in comparative foreign policy analysis. These include realism, liberalism, constructivism, and other theoretical perspectives that offer different insights into understanding the motivations and behaviors of states in the international arena. Methodologies: The authors explore different research methodologies and approaches used in comparative foreign policy analysis. They discuss qualitative and quantitative methods, case studies, content analysis, surveys, and other research techniques employed to gather data and analyze foreign policy decision-making processes.

Their work introduces and defines key concepts in the field of comparative foreign policy analysis. These concepts include national interest, decision-making processes, public opinion, elite perceptions, bureaucratic politics, and the role of international institutions. Understanding these concepts helps to analyze and compare foreign policy behavior across different countries. Furthermore, Lantis and Beasley provide case studies that illustrate the application of comparative analysis to understand foreign policy. These case studies cover a range of countries and regions, allowing readers to examine how different factors and actors shape foreign policy decisions in specific contexts.

Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis is a field of study that examines and compares the foreign policies of different countries. It seeks to understand the factors and processes that shape a country's foreign policy decisions, as well as the outcomes and impacts of those decisions. The theory and methodology of Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis involve several key elements. First, Comparative Approach: Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis emphasizes the comparison of foreign policies across different countries. By examining similarities and differences, researchers can identify patterns, trends, and variations in foreign policy behavior. Second, Levels of Analysis: Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis considers various levels of analysis, including the individual, domestic, and systemic levels. The individual level focuses on the role of leaders, their beliefs, and personalities in shaping foreign policy. The systemic level analyzes the impact of the international system and global dynamics on foreign policy. Third, Methodological Pluralism, in Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis involves finding value in varieties of sources of information and utilizes a range of research methods and techniques. It believes that no research method is inherently superior to any other ^[12;13]. Fourth, Theoretical Frameworks: Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis draws on various theoretical frameworks to explain and understand foreign policy behavior. Fifth, Case Selection: Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis involves the selection of specific cases for analysis. Researchers choose countries or specific foreign policy issues that are relevant to their research questions. Case selection can be based on criteria such as geographical diversity, historical significance, or policy relevance.

Methodologically, it employs the use of comparative analysis relying solely on secondary information for data generation and analysis.

Overview of Nigeria and South Africa

Foreign policy is a major tool used by nation states to realise well defined national interests through influencing the behavior of other states and/or manipulating the global environment. In doing this, certain key national resources, domestic considerations, and specific geopolitical designs are deployed as instruments to achieving the set policy objectives in the world system that naturally consists of sovereign states as well as non-sovereign states whose role is pivotal to world's socio-economic and political development ^[14]. Nigeria and South Africa are both active state actors in the international system. Unarguably, Nigeria and South Africa are two important nations in the continent of Africa whose foreign policy actions and inactions are crucial to the desire development of their areas of regional and global influence, particularly for the African continent. It is precisely in this context that the paper is of the view that because states are experiencing challenges and transformations both internally and externally that the analysis of foreign policy (the values that give rise to those policy actions and the means or instruments used to pursue) is important.

While the necessity for cooperation, partnership and collaboration by both countries cannot be overemphasised, with the shifting dynamics of the international system, the chequered history of Nigeria-South Africa relations ^[15] has experienced the 3Cs – conflict, cooperation and, competition ^[16]. For example, during the apartheid era, Nigeria-South Africa relations was very cordial, this was followed by conflict during the killing of the Ogoni 9. Thereafter, was the probable competition of leadership on the continent, which was visible during the nomination and election of the African Union (AU) Commission chairperson in 2012, the continent voted along regional lines. South Africa received its overwhelming support from the South African Development Community (SADC) region, while Jean Ping, the Gabonese candidate, received his support from the ECOWAS region. Another incident of conflict of interest was in Ivory Coast. Nigeria had mounted a diplomatic campaign, backed by the United States, the United Nations, and European powers, combining financial sanctions and the threat of military action to dislodge Laurent Gbagbo, the defeated presidential incumbent to yield power, while South Africa pressed for a power-sharing agreement that would preserve a role for Gbagbo in Ivory Coast’s government ^[17]. The yellow fever certificate deportation narrative that involved the two countries deporting nationals.

Determinants of Nigeria and South Africa foreign policy behaviors: comparative perspective

Understandably, the foreign policy of a state is conditioned by two determinants, namely the domestic and the foreign. The argument of the primacy of one determinant over the other has over the years been an argument ^[18]. Chuka Enuka argue that, “The understanding of foreign policy has the problem of establishing the boundary between that which is foreign, and those who are domestic” ^[19] It is pertinent to state that the nature of the activities in the international system one way or another determines the foreign policy of nation states. According to Ola Adeniyi ^[20] "the external factor which is, the nature of the international system where nations operate, primarily determines the foreign policy of especially the developing countries. He argue that, “This is a reality to which African countries have to adjust”. This invariably means African countries foreign policies are reactive to the international system, than been proactive. This paper is of the view that the nature of international system, especially in Africa and in relations to other countries has continue to be the determinant of the foreign policies, including the state(s) relationship with non-state actors.

History indelibly influences foreign policy. Consciously or unconsciously, government officials rely on their understanding of the past in seeking to address what is happening today; they seek to render new and complex issues more legible by drawing insights from what has come before ^[21]. History has a role to play in the future formulation and articulations of states foreign policy. Historical knowledge, when used properly, can have a highly constructive influence on policy. Nigeria and South Africa share several similarities that could indelibly influence their foreign policies. Some commonalities between the two countries include: Colonial History: Both Nigeria and South Africa were colonized by European powers. Nigeria was colonized by the British, while South Africa was colonized by the Dutch and later the British.

Independence: Both countries gained their independence from colonial rule in the 20th century. Nigeria gained independence in 1960, while South Africa achieved full independence from apartheid in 1994. Population: Nigeria and South Africa are the two most populous countries in Africa. Nigeria has the largest population on the continent, while South Africa is the second most populous. Economic Powerhouses: Nigeria and South Africa are considered to be the largest economies in Africa ^[22]. They are both major players in industries such as oil, mining, telecommunications, and finance. Cultural Diversity: Both countries have diverse populations with multiple ethnic groups and languages. Nigeria is known for its rich cultural heritage, with over 250 ethnic groups, while South Africa is known for its diverse mix of African, European, and Asian cultures.

According to Ole R. Holsti, the comparison of how domestic factors shape foreign policies across different countries, gives insights into the complex interplay between domestic and international dynamics.

Chukwu C. James & Blessing C. Arize ^[19] argue that "the colonial history of any country is also a key determinant of its foreign policy". They submit that the determinants of foreign policy can be broadly divided into three categories:

1. Internal factors

2. External factors

3. Policy making factors

For the purpose of this paper, the authors submit that it is practically unable to exhaust all the factors, but will examine the factors enumerated below.

Economic Factor: policies of Nigeria and South Africa

Helen V. Milner posits that reciprocal impact of trade on domestic politics and the international political system is important ^[11]. The economic structure of a state refers to the economic forces at play in that state to foster development. Economic power, which is not limited to just economic wealth to purchase military capability, can give a state influence in international politics through programs such as sanctions or promises of an economically rewarding relationship. The economic structure is significant determinant of a nation’s foreign policy choices. South Africa plays a significant role in the structure of intra-sub-Saharan African trade. Recorded exports to South Africa exceed ++1 percent of domestic GDP for at least a dozen countries, with links most noticeable for countries in the SADC sub-region (see figure 1). Some clustering of trade flows can also be seen between Nigeria and its closest neighbors and within eastern Africa. The large amount of informal (unmeasured) cross-border trade in these sub-regions, particularly in agricultural goods, suggests closer ties and linkages than indicated by official trade statistics (see figure 1). In Figure 1, all intraregional exports larger than 1 percent of the exporter’s GDP are identified by lines connecting the exporter to the relevant importer (indicated by an arrow), while figure 2 represent .

Global as well as intraregional trade linkages, with South Africa and Nigeria main connections. Countries within the euro area are the most important export destination for 34 sub-Saharan African countries, making the euro area the center of sub-Saharan Africa’s external networks; China and the United States are key markets for 19 sub-Saharan African countries, while India plays a significant role for 15 economies.

Figure 1: Intraregional exports ^[23]

Viewing from the lens of the priority areas of President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda for Nigeria and President Ramaphosa top priorities for the development of South Africa as delivered in 2019 and 2023, respectively ^{[24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29]}. The policies of President Tinubu of Nigeria and President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa have distinct differences and similarities. It is important to note that this analysis provides a general overview and does not cover every aspect of their policies. President Tinubu's policies in Nigeria have focused on economic development and infrastructure improvement. He has prioritized job creation, attracting foreign investment, diversifying the economy, and promote industrialization, with a focus on sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and technology. Tinubu has also advocated for policies that promote good governance, fight corruption, and improve the welfare of Nigerians. On the other hand, President Cyril Ramaphosa's policies in South Africa have been centered around addressing the country's socio-economic challenges. His administration has prioritized initiatives to reduce unemployment, inequality, and poverty, through initiatives such as the Youth Employment Service (YES) program, which provides work experience and training opportunities for young people. Ramaphosa has also implemented policies to attract investment, boost economic growth, and improve public service delivery. Both presidents have emphasized the need for inclusive growth and social development. They have recognized the importance of education and skills development in driving economic progress. Additionally, both leaders have shown a commitment to combating corruption and promoting transparency in government.

However, there are also notable differences in their policies. President Tinubu has focused on pro-business policies and market-oriented reforms, aiming to create an enabling environment for entrepreneurship and private sector growth. President Ramaphosa, on the other hand, has prioritized social welfare programs and initiatives to address historical inequalities, such as land reform and affirmative action.

With cross similarity of the policies of the two Government, the article thus submit to the argument of Helen V. Milner, that large-scale changes in political institutions, especially in the direction of democracy, necessary for massive economic development cannot be overlooked. Unarguably, the changes in preferences explains the rush to free trade and economic development of the two Sub-Saharan African countries.

Political Factor: Nigeria and South Africa

The type of government operational in a state is essential in determining its foreign policy thrust. Like any other developing heterogonous society faced with the challenges of finding unity in diversity. Some institutions have come to influence the activities of State governments, some in a very profound manner.

Ole R. Holsti and Helen V. Milner argued that the decision-making approach forced analysts to consider the domestic political arena. Hence, domestic politics played a significant role in relations and the balance of power among the countries ^{[6; 9]}. The pressures being exhibited on the government in power moderates its foreign policy actions. For instance, during and after independence, the Nigeria domestic environment was steeped in the tradition of ethnic polities. Trustly, the political parties that emerged were divided along ethnic lines, most of them owing their principal allegiance to their ethnic groups. One major example of pressure on government that moderates its foreign policy in Nigeria was the 1960 Anglo Nigerian Defense Pact which was abrogated due to the opposition from Nigerian students and other bodies ^[18].

On the other hand, following the institutionalisation of racism against black South Africans in 1948, the system went through stages. Though the apartheid regime in South Africa lasted from 1948 to 1994, it went through different phases in its rise and fall due to internal struggles and international pressures: the 1950s, where black South Africans could live in cities as long as their work was necessary for the white urban citizens; the 1960s, the peak of apartheid, when due to the distinct state displacement of ‘surplus’ black African population of about 3.5 million people to segregated, self-governing homelands, the central government ignore the responsibility for the welfare and education of displaced black South Africans; and the 1970s–1994 era, when economic conditions, protests and rebellions induced a ‘reformist’ turn, as compared to the earlier phases ^[31].

The foreign policy of a nation is conceived in the minds of the men who subscribe to certain fundamental beliefs relating to the distribution of power in society, the proper function of government and a particular way of life. Hence, most African democracies are not re-distributive. Thus, the importance of individual level in CFP analysis. It focuses on the role of leaders, their beliefs, and personalities in shaping foreign policy.

Idiosyncratic Element: Nigeria and South Africa

The duty of fashioning the foreign policy of the country falls on the government of the day. As explicitly posited by Akinyemi, the personality and psychological factors of the leaders running the system of government are also determinants of foreign policy, they puts flesh on the constitutional provisions of the state giving the people the recognisable form being seen ^[32]. In other words, leadership phenomenon is imperative in making foreign policy decisions as well as its effect on other states. Idiosyncratic factors include perceptions of leaders, historical experiences, and ideological orientations. Unarguably, they all affect the South African and Nigeria foreign policies along with the dynamic geopolitical environment. Especially the fact that foreign policy is largely and exclusively determined by the Executive. It is quite true that Nigeria’s external relations from independence till date and South Africa especially since the post apartheid era, can be said have reflected to a very large extent the character of her leaders. Power has always been personalised to the extent that whatever a regime does is more or less a reflection of the man who occupies the seat of president. Foreign policy actions are not immune from this personalisation of power. Thus the personal style and idiosyncratic of both countries past leaders have made the study of their foreign relations a study of regime types, since there is hardly a standard pattern of behaviour ^{[33; 18]}.

In xraying the Idiosyncratic factor - the leadership phenomenon of South Africa and Nigeria, the United Nations General Assembly speeches of both President Tinubu of Nigeria and President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa is worth analysing. The speeches provided insights into their respective priorities, concerns, and policy perspectives on global issues. While the specific content and themes of their speeches may vary, we can highlight some commonalities and differences based on their addresses.

President Tinubu's speeches at the United Nations General Assembly have often focused on Nigeria's domestic challenges and their implications for the region and the world. He has emphasized the importance of stability, security, and economic development in Nigeria, highlighting the need for international cooperation to address issues such as terrorism, violent extremism, and the refugee crisis. Tinubu has also underscored Nigeria's commitment to democratic governance, human rights, climatechange and sustainable development. He also focused ^[34] on many of the problems that Africa faces such as democratic governance, extremism, Africa's mineral resources, etc and the fact that the West is not ready to deal with Africa on equal terms. He stated that Africa seeks for an equally firm commitment to partnership and enhanced international cooperation with African nations to achieve the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals ^[35]. He also noted that failures in good governance have hindered Africa”. President Tinubu acknowledged that the “ broken promises, unfair treatment and outright exploitation from abroad have also exacted a heavy toll on Africa’s ability to progress.

In contrast, President Cyril Ramaphosa's speeches have typically showcased South Africa's commitment to global issues, regional cooperation, and multilateralism. He has emphasized the importance of addressing global challenges such as climate change, poverty, inequality, and peace and security. Ramaphosa has advocated for the reform of global institutions, including the United Nations, to ensure greater representation and effectiveness in addressing these challenges. He also highlighted South Africa's efforts to promote peace and stability in Africa, particularly through mediation and conflict resolution initiatives.

Both leaders have expressed support for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and have highlighted their countries' efforts to achieve these goals. President Tinubu has emphasized Nigeria's progress in areas such as poverty reduction, education, and healthcare, while also acknowledging the need for further action and international support. President Ramaphosa has similarly stressed South Africa's commitment to the SDGs and has outlined specific policies and initiatives aimed at achieving them, such as job creation, gender equality, and renewable energy development. Additionally, President Tinubu often used his speeches to advocate for African unity, cooperation, and the empowerment of African nations on the global stage. He called for increased representation of African countries in international decision-making processes and highlighted the potential of the African continent in areas such as trade, investment, and innovation. President Ramaphosa, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of regional integration and cooperation within Africa. He highlighted South Africa's role in promoting regional economic development, infrastructure connectivity, and peace and security in the African Union and other regional organizations.

The above argument conform with Sydner, who posits that individuals within decision-making groups interact, negotiate, and influence each other's perspectives, leading to collective decision outcomes. Suffice it to state that the position of the aforementioned leaders in determining foreign policies of their respective countries, is in consonant with what Richard Snyder viewed as a world of decision makers ensconced in groups, and national cultures subjectively interpreting situations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while President Tinubu's policies in Nigeria have primarily focused on economic development and good governance, President Cyril Ramaphosa's policies in South Africa have centered around addressing socio-economic challenges and promoting inclusive growth. Both leaders have demonstrated a commitment to improving the welfare of their citizens and driving progress in their respective countries. It is worth noting that the policies of both leaders are influenced by the unique challenges and contexts of their respective countries. Nigeria and South Africa face different socio-economic realities, and as such, the policy priorities of President Tinubu and President Ramaphosa reflect these specific circumstances.

Generally, President Tinubu and President Cyril Ramaphosa have implemented policies aimed at addressing key socio-economic challenges in their countries, promoting economic development, and improving the well-being of their citizens. Overall, the analysis of President Tinubu and President Cyril Ramaphosa's United Nations General Assembly speeches reveals their commitment to addressing global challenges, promoting regional cooperation, and advancing their countries' interests on the international stage.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is playing a visible role in contributing to solving the war in Ukraine, While President Tinubu primarily focused on Nigeria's domestic and Africa’s challenges and their implications, as well as playing a visible role in contributing to solving.

The economies of Nigeria and South Africa account for one-half of sub-Saharan Africa’s GDP, and are potentially major drivers of growth for the region as a whole. However, in the wake of new members into BRICS, African Union (AU) been made a permanent member of the G20, giving the continent an important voice on key global issues, coupled with the dynamic evolving role of South Africa and Nigeria in the global arena, it is expected that increased cooperation between both countries should position Africa in decision making process of both regional and world politics as well as ensure that reform within the United Nations security Council take into consideration equitable representation of Africa. This include increased cooperation for better opportunities for ensuring regional and global peace and security, such as in Africa, and in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, as well as expanding investments, opportunities for improving sources of revenue in the continent.

It should be noted that South Africa and Nigeria’s relations with their neighbours and the world at large will one way or another determine how the world will continue to view Africa.