By RAYMOND OISE
It is no longer news that Nigerian citizens in South Africa have, at different times, been subjected to xenophobic attacks. Recent developments suggest that the situation has once again escalated to a deeply troubling level, drawing widespread condemnation from individuals and groups across all walks of life.
This disturbing trend has naturally sparked intense public discourse, with many proposing different measures aimed at addressing the crisis and safeguarding Nigerians abroad. Among the more prominent suggestions is the call for the withdrawal of operating licences granted to certain South African companies in Nigeria, notably MultiChoice Group (DSTV) and MTN Group.
While such proposals may stem from genuine frustration and a desire for decisive action, it is important to carefully examine their broader implications.
Withdrawing the licences of companies like DSTV and MTN may appear bold and patriotic on the surface, but the potential consequences cannot be ignored. Such actions would inevitably push more Nigerian youths into an already saturated labour market. In the absence of viable alternatives, frustration and economic hardship may intensify and these are conditions that can drive some toward crime and further aggravated the already fragile security situation in the country.
Beyond the economic impact, such measures risk triggering unintended social consequences. Prolonged hardship and rising insecurity could breed internalised hostility among citizens, fostering division and tension within society. At that point, the situation may deteriorate into a harsh reality where survival instincts take precedence to become a survival of the fittest scenario that benefits no one.
This is what happens when complex national issues are approached without sufficient strategic depth; and this is akin to assigning a mechanic the role of a doctor. It raises fundamental questions such as “what is the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in moments like this? What is the true essence of diplomatic relations if not to manage conflicts through dialogue, negotiation, and calculated engagement?
Why abandon diplomacy, which is the most effective and globally accepted tool for resolving international disputes. in favour of actions that may ultimately harm our own economy and citizens? Why escalate when constructive engagement could yield more sustainable outcomes?
Furthermore, if governance over time had been more prudent, inclusive, and people-oriented, would so many Nigerians feel compelled to seek opportunities abroad under difficult and, in some cases, degrading conditions? This question strikes at the root of the issue and demands sincere reflection.
In addressing xenophobic attacks and their underlying causes, our responses must be guided by careful reasoning, not just emotion. We must resist the urge to act impulsively in ways that may offer temporary satisfaction but create long-term damage.
This, therefore, should be the line of thinking; one that prioritises strategy over sentiment and substance over symbolism. Otherwise, we risk putting the cart before the horse, focusing on reactive measures while neglecting the deeper structural challenges that require lasting solutions.
In view of the foregoing, the most reasonable and logical path forward is diplomacy. That is the very essence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the core responsibility of Ambassadors to protect national interests through dialogue and strategic engagement, rather than reactionary measures.
*Raymond Oise writes via: raymondoise@yahoo.com
The Star