Concentric Circles Theory in Practice: Nigeria’s Afrocentric Foreign Policy and Regional–Global Strategic Priorities

Cite this article: Bello, M. A. & Usman, A. F. 2026. “Concentric Circles Theory in Practice: Nigeria’s Afrocentric Foreign Policy and Regional–Global Strategic Priorities”. Sokoto Journal of History Vol. 14, Iss. 01. Pp. 162-175. www.doi.org/10.36349/sokotojh.2026.v14i01.015

CONCENTRIC CIRCLES THEORY IN PRACTICE: NIGERIA’S AFROCENTRIC FOREIGN POLICY AND REGIONAL–GLOBAL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

By

Muazu Alkali Bello

Department of Liberal Studies, Abdu-Gusau Polytechnic,

Talata-Mafara, Zamfara State

And

Abdulateef Femi Usman

Department of History & International Studies,

Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto-Nigeria

Abstract: This study examines Nigeria’s foreign policy through the Concentric Circles Theory, offering a structured framework for understanding how domestic, regional, continental, and global priorities are sequenced. While the existing literature documents Nigeria’s leadership in West Africa and the African Union, and its engagement with global institutions, there remains limited analysis of how hierarchical prioritization and Afrocentric principles are consistently operationalized across all four concentric circles. Addressing this gap, the study assesses Nigeria’s application of the theory, evaluating how Afrocentric commitments influence decision-making in regional engagements within ECOWAS, continental initiatives through the African Union, and global diplomatic outreach. Employing a historical and explorative qualitative research design, data were sourced from high-ranking policy documents and scholarly literature and subjected to rigorous thematic analysis guided by the Concentric Circles Theory. Findings reveal that Nigeria prioritizes domestic security and immediate neighbors, operationalizes Afrocentric principles through peacekeeping, mediation, and economic initiatives, and strategically engages multilateral and bilateral partners to project influence while maintaining Africa-focused objectives. Challenges persist in coordination, long-term sustainability, and measurable outcomes at continental and global levels. The study recommends institutional strengthening and systematic monitoring of foreign policy actions. By linking theory with empirical evidence, the research contributes to scholarship in history, international studies, political science, and policy-making, and identifies future avenues for investigating Nigeria’s global strategic adaptation and the operationalization of the fourth concentric circle in a multipolar world.

Keywords: Afrocentrism, African Union, Concentric cycles, Global strategic priorities, ECOWAS Foreign policy

Introduction

Nigeria’s foreign policy has long been recognized as a crucial instrument in shaping both regional and continental dynamics in Africa (Oshewolo, 2021). Since independence in 1960, Nigeria has actively pursued a foreign policy that prioritizes African stability and development, reflecting its geopolitical prominence as the continent’s most populous state, and a leading economic actor within West Africa and the African Union (AU). Afrocentric foreign policy has been central in this pursuit, embedding principles of Pan‑Africanism, collective security, and regional cooperation as pillars of Nigeria’s external engagements. Scholars note that Nigeria’s external policy is tailored to advancing national interests by prioritizing Africa’s stability and development (Alkali et al., 2023a; Dauda et al., 2019).

To analytically capture Nigeria’s prioritization of foreign policy issues, the Concentric Circles Theory has been widely employed in the literature. Articulated initially by Ibrahim A. Gambari, this theory posits that states structure their foreign relations in layers of priority, beginning with immediate domestic interests and progressively expanding outward to regional, continental, and global concerns (Gambari, 1984). Specifically, the innermost circle encompasses Nigeria’s security, independence, and prosperity centred on its immediate neighbors; the second circle focuses on West African relations; the third addresses continental African issues of peace and development; and the outermost circle involves relationships beyond Africa’s borders (Gambari, 1984, & Oshewolo et al., 2023). This layered framework provides a structured lens for analyzing how Nigeria manages competing strategic priorities across different geopolitical domains, thereby signaling that the present study is theory-driven rather than merely descriptive.

Nigeria’s Afrocentric foreign policy itself reflects a clear normative orientation towards Africa as the epicenter of its diplomatic commitments. Afrocentrism in foreign policy gives primacy to African issues in external relations, rooted in historical experiences of colonization and post-colonial identity formation (Akinyemi, 2007; Dauda et al., 2019). This approach has manifested in Nigeria’s leadership roles in regional organizations, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and in its active participation in AU peace and security mechanisms. Research also shows that Nigeria’s Afrocentric posturing influences its diplomatic identity and has been perpetuated across successive civilian and military regimes, thereby underlining the policy’s continuity and evolution (Talibu, 2016; Alkali et al., 2023).

Despite substantial descriptive literature on Nigeria’s foreign policy, there remains a significant gap in integrating Concentric Circles Theory with systematic analysis of how Nigeria operationalizes Afrocentric priorities across regional to global arenas. Existing works tend to emphasize historical narratives or specific case studies without fully aligning them with a coherent theoretical framework that explicates strategic prioritization. This gap in theory, application, and empirical assessment, raises questions about the implications of layered prioritization for diplomatic effectiveness.

Against this backdrop, the central research problem of this study is the limited theoretical integration in existing scholarship, which hampers a comprehensive understanding of how Nigeria balances Afrocentric commitments with broader regional and global strategic objectives. Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions: What are the key dynamics of Nigeria’s layered foreign policy priorities within the concentric circles framework? And how does Afrocentric foreign policy influence Nigeria’s regional and global engagements in practice? In line with these questions, the study examines Nigeria’s application of the Concentric Circles Theory in structuring foreign policy priorities at the regional and global levels. It also seeks to assess the extent to which Afrocentric principles shape strategic decision-making across regional engagements in West Africa, continental initiatives through the African Union, and global diplomatic outreach.

Given the above, this research covers Nigeria’s foreign policy from the theoretical foundations of the concentric circles and Afrocentric orientation to specific regional (ECOWAS, AU) and global engagements (United Nations and global partnerships). The significance of this study lies in its potential to bridge the divide between conceptual frameworks and empirical realities, offering new insights into how Nigeria’s foreign policy can be better understood, evaluated, and potentially reformed to enhance strategic impact across multiple geopolitical layers.

Research Methodology

This study adopts a historical, exploratory, qualitative research design to analyze Nigeria’s foreign policy through the lens of the Concentric Circles Theory. Qualitative research is widely recognized in the social sciences as suitable for exploring complex socio‑political phenomena that require contextual depth and interpretive insight (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Creswell & Poth, 2016). The historical dimension of this methodology enables the researcher to trace the evolution of Nigeria’s foreign policy from independence to the present, situating policy priorities within broader geopolitical and theoretical developments, thereby enhancing the study's explanatory power.

All data collected for this research were sourced exclusively from highly reputable journals, books, theses, and institutional reports retrieved from established academic databases, including Scopus, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis Online, LibGen, and Google Scholar. These sources are considered credible and authoritative within the fields of International Relations and Foreign Policy Analysis, and they ensure that the study draws on peer‑reviewed, scholarly-validated evidence. The data corpus includes seminal works on Nigeria’s foreign policy history, applications of the Concentric Circles Theory, and analyses of Afrocentric diplomatic practices.

Data were subjected to a rigorous thematic analysis to produce reliable and authentic findings. Thematic analysis is a recognized qualitative technique that allows researchers to identify, analyze systematically, and report patterns within textual data (Braun & Clarke, 2021 & Pant, 2023). This method is especially appropriate for exploratory research in which theoretical constructs must be traced across diverse sources and contexts. Through inductive and deductive coding, key themes related to layered foreign policy prioritization, normative orientations, and theoretical assumptions were identified and synthesized across the dataset.

Six key assumptions underpinning the Concentric Circles Theory include: prioritizing proximity in foreign relations; rational allocation of foreign policy resources; hierarchical sequencing of strategic interests; continuity of foreign policy across administrations; dynamics of internal and external constraints; and the influence of normative commitments on diplomatic behavior. Recent scholars, such as Garba and Garba (2020), have applied the theory to assess Nigeria’s foreign policy layers. Yet they note gaps in the systematic evaluation of the fourth circle and in the empirical testing of hierarchical logic in practice.

The theory is used to emphasize and argue the structured prioritization inherent in Nigeria’s foreign policy, providing a scientific contribution by aligning historical foreign policy patterns with theoretical assumptions. One key assumption of the rational allocation of foreign policy resources across concentric circles is examined as a scientific contribution to understanding how Nigeria balances Afrocentric commitments with global strategic objectives, thereby enriching both theoretical and empirical discussions in the field. Consequently, the key assumption underpinning the theory is as follows, as shown in diagram 1.

Diagram 1: Key assumptions underpinning concentric cycle theory 

Source: Researchers (2026)

Literature review

3-1 Theoretical Foundations of the Concentric Circles Approach in Foreign Policy Analysis

The Concentric Circles Theory has been foundational for understanding how Nigeria structures and prioritizes its foreign policy. First advanced by Ibrahim A. Gambari, the theory conceptualizes foreign relations as layered priorities, beginning with domestic interests and expanding outward to regional, continental, and global concerns (Gambari, 1984; Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nigeria, 2021). In this framework, the innermost circle represents Nigeria’s national security, independence, and prosperity at home and with immediate neighbors. The second circle refers to the West African sub-region, operationalized through the ECOWAS. The third circle extends to broader African continental issues, particularly within the African Union (AU). The fourth circle explicitly captures Nigeria’s relations with countries outside Africa and multilateral organizations, including the United Nations, G20, IMF, World Bank, and strategic bilateral partnerships (Alkali et al., 2023). This global layer allows scholars to evaluate how Nigeria balances its Afrocentric regional priorities with international obligations and opportunities in a multipolar world.

Several key assumptions underpin Concentric Circles Theory. First, it assumes that states prioritize immediate domestic and security concerns over distant diplomatic engagements (Alkali et al., 2023a & Ibrahim & Babangida, 2025). Second, it presumes that geographical proximity determines the intensity and frequency of foreign policy interactions, with neighbors receiving the most attention (Gambari, 1984). Third, the theory assumes a hierarchical logic of interests, in which regional, continental, and global priorities are sequenced by strategic importance (Dauda et al., 2019). Fourth, it presupposes that state behavior is rational and strategically oriented, enabling allocation of resources to areas of highest strategic value. Fifth, it assumes continuity of foreign policy, whereby historical, ideological, and cultural factors shape the concentric order (Akinyemi, 2007). Sixth, it posits that foreign policy decisions are constrained by both internal capacities and external systemic pressures, such as competing global powers or economic limitations (ThisDayLive, 2024). These assumptions collectively provide a robust lens for examining Nigeria’s foreign policy, particularly how it sequences priorities from domestic concerns to global diplomacy.

A critical strength of the theory lies in its realist orientation, emphasizing national interest and security as the foundation of foreign policy (Garba & Garba 2020). For Nigeria, prioritizing immediate neighbors and regional stability aligns with its self-perception as a regional hegemon, thereby influencing peace and economic cooperation across West Africa (Bello et al., 2023b; Oshewolo, 2021). Comparative insights show that similar concentric frameworks are evident in other African states, such as South Africa’s layered regional engagements and Egypt’s continental and global diplomacy (Garba & Garba, 2020). However, the fourth circle remains underexplored. While Nigeria actively engages global partners and multilateral organizations, literature often stops at continental priorities, neglecting how Afrocentric principles intersect with strategic global interests (ThisDayLive, 2024).

Moreover, empirical verification of the theory’s assumptions remains limited. Studies rarely explore whether Nigeria’s prioritization follows the hierarchical logic in practice, or how internal constraints (e.g., resource limitations) and external pressures (e.g., multipolar influences) shape outcomes. The fourth circle is particularly under-theorized, leaving gaps in understanding Nigeria’s international influence and effectiveness beyond Africa. These gaps underscore the need for research that critically examines the assumptions of Concentric Circles Theory and considers Nigeria’s operationalization across all four circles.

To synthesize the key concepts, assumptions, and research gaps, the table below summarizes insights from the literature and identifies areas requiring further inquiry.

Table 1: Concepts, Assumptions, and Gaps in Concentric Circles Literature

Aspect	Key Insights	Research Gap
Theory Origin	Prioritizes domestic, regional, continental, global	The hierarchical ordering of the four circles remains largely under-examined in practice.
State Prioritization	Prioritizes domestic, regional, continental, global
Key Assumptions	Proximity prioritization, rational behavior, policy continuity, hierarchical interest, internal/external constraints, domestic security primacy	Few studies systematically evaluate assumptions in practice
Comparative Framework	Nigerian case examined; some comparisons with South Africa, Egypt	Sparse systematic cross-country comparison
Contemporary Challenges	External powers influence regional and global dynamics	Global fourth circle underexplored; theory needs adaptation to multipolar context

Source: Researchers (2026).

This synthesis demonstrates that while Concentric Circles Theory provides a valuable framework for understanding Nigeria’s foreign policy, particularly its layered prioritization from domestic to global levels, critical gaps remain. The fourth circle, encompassing Nigeria’s relations with non-African countries and multilateral organizations, is essential for evaluating the interaction between Afrocentric policy principles and global strategy and for identifying areas where Nigeria’s influence may be limited or constrained. Addressing these gaps allows the study to critically examine and assess Nigeria’s foreign policy implementation in both regional and global contexts.

3-2 Afrocentrism as Nigeria’s Guiding Foreign Policy Framework

Building on the theoretical framing in the introduction, Afrocentrism serves as the normative and operational backbone of Nigeria’s foreign policy, prioritizing African interests within both regional and global contexts (Garba, 2022). Afrocentric foreign policy is defined as a diplomatic orientation in which Nigeria places Africa at the center of its external engagements, guided by principles of Pan-Africanism, collective security, and continental development (Dauda et al., 2019). This principle-driven approach distinguishes Nigeria’s external policy from purely realist models, emphasizing moral responsibility, solidarity, and the promotion of African agency in international affairs (Akinyemi, 2007 & Talibu & Muhammad, 2016). However, there is a gap in empirical analysis of how Afrocentric principles are consistently applied across different administrations and strategic contexts.

The historical emergence of Afrocentrism is closely linked to Nigeria’s post-independence identity formation. As Africa’s most populous state, Nigeria assumed an early leadership role in supporting decolonization and liberation movements across the continent, establishing itself as a pivotal actor within the OAU and later the AU (Bello et al, 2023). Nigeria’s interventions in Southern Africa and engagement in conflict resolution demonstrate the early operationalization of Afrocentric principles. Nevertheless, the existing literature primarily offers descriptive accounts, often failing to critically assess the effectiveness of Afrocentric commitments in advancing tangible regional outcomes, thereby creating a gap that this study seeks to address.

More so, Afrocentrism has also shaped Nigeria’s national interest and diplomatic identity, positioning the country as a moral and political leader within Africa. Nigeria’s engagement in ECOWAS peacekeeping missions, continental mediation efforts, and AU-led initiatives reflects a deliberate strategy to align normative commitments with practical diplomacy (Akindoyin & Isaac 2025). Despite these achievements, there is a critical gap in the literature on the balance between Africa-focused priorities and Nigeria’s evolving global interests, especially in a multipolar international system where economic and security considerations increasingly influence decision-making.

 In addition, policy documents provide further insight into the operationalization of Afrocentrism. Early government statements and white papers explicitly endorsed African unity and liberation as guiding principles of Nigeria’s foreign policy (Akinyemi, 2007; Oshewolo, 2021). Subsequent administrations reiterated these commitments through formal diplomatic channels, reflecting continuity in Nigeria’s external orientation. Yet, there is a clear gap in the systematic analysis of how these rhetorical commitments translate into consistent foreign policy actions at the regional and global levels.

Given the above, afrocentrism remains central to Nigeria’s foreign policy framework, defining its principles, historical trajectory, and operational conduct in both regional and continental arena. The literature, however, reveals gaps in critically linking normative Afrocentric commitments with pragmatic strategic outcomes, particularly regarding their alignment with global engagements and the fourth concentric circle. This study addresses these gaps by critically examining how Afrocentric principles inform Nigeria’s foreign policy priorities and operational choices, thereby contributing to a nuanced understanding of its diplomatic identity and effectiveness across multiple geopolitical contexts.

3-3 Operationalizing the Concentric Circles: Nigeria’s Regional and Continental Engagements

The operationalization of the Concentric Circles Theory in Nigeria’s foreign policy is most evident in the inner, second, and third circles, as reflected in the scholarly literature on Nigeria’s regional and continental engagements, which consistently highlights a structured prioritization of proximate and Africa-centered concerns (Campus, 2025 & Gambari, 1984). The inner circle encompasses Nigeria’s immediate neighbors, Chad, Benin, Niger, Cameroon, and Ghana, and is widely identified in the literature as central to the country’s security, political, and economic interests. Through its leadership in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Nigeria has been analyzed as playing a dominant role in conflict mediation, peacekeeping and regional policy coordination. Existing studies frequently cite interventions in Liberia (1990–1999) and Sierra Leone (1991–2000) as illustrative cases used to demonstrate Nigeria’s application of concentric prioritization, combining diplomatic engagement, limited military deployment, and economic incentives to stabilize neighboring states (Akinyemi, 2007; Alkali et al., 2023). However, the literature remains evaluative mainly rather than systematic, with gaps persisting in assessing the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of such engagements, particularly in contexts of domestic resource constraints and political volatility in adjacent countries.

The second circle extends to the broader West African sub-region, operationalized through ECOWAS as a 15-member bloc. Scholarly accounts emphasize that Nigeria’s engagement at this level reflects the prioritization of collective regional security, economic integration, and democratic consolidation. Peacekeeping and conflict prevention initiatives, such as those undertaken by the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), are frequently cited in the literature as evidence of Nigeria’s leadership role within the sub-regional security architecture, demonstrating its commitment to regional stability (Dauda et al., 2019). Beyond security, studies also note Nigeria’s contributions to regional economic initiatives, including infrastructure development and trade facilitation within ECOWAS (Alkali et al. 2023b). Nevertheless, the literature highlights persistent gaps in coordination effectiveness, as divergent national interests among member states often hinder collective action, suggesting the need for more systematic comparative evaluations of ECOWAS-led initiatives and Nigeria’s leadership effectiveness within the bloc.

The third circle reflects Nigeria’s broader continental engagements within the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Here, scholars analyze Nigeria’s Afrocentric foreign policy as operationalized through participation in continental peacekeeping missions, mediation in inter-state disputes, and leadership in policy reform initiatives (Gambari 1984; Akinyemi 2007). The literature commonly references Nigeria’s involvement in AU-led missions in Mali, Darfur, and the Central African Republic as illustrative of its continental commitments, alongside participation in AU reforms and NEPAD projects focused on governance, infrastructure development, and economic integration.(Yusuf et al., 2025).These studies suggest that such engagements reflect the theory’s assumptions about hierarchical interests and policy continuity, in which Nigeria leverages its regional influence to pursue continental stability and development. However, existing scholarship remains limited in providing systematic empirical assessments of outcomes, with few studies evaluating whether these continental interventions translate into sustainable or measurable impacts across Africa.

Consequently, across these three circles, scholars identify standard mechanisms underpinning operationalization, including formal diplomacy, mediation, peacekeeping contributions, economic incentives, and policy coordination through regional and continental institutions (Alkali et al.2023a; 2023b & Campus, 2025). The literature increasingly notes that each concentric level introduces greater complexity, requiring broader stakeholder engagement, expanded resource allocation, and enhanced strategic planning. Yet, critical gaps persist in systematically evaluating the effectiveness of these mechanisms, the coordination among multiple actors, and the integration of regional priorities with continental objectives, highlighting a persistent disconnect between theoretical assumptions and observed practice.

Table 2 synthesizes dominant scholarly interpretations of Nigeria’s regional and continental engagements within the concentric-circle framework, highlighting recurring themes and unresolved gaps identified in the literature.

Table 2: Nigeria’s Operationalization of Regional and Continental Concentric Circles

Circle	Focus Area	Key Case Studies / Engagements	Mechanisms	Challenges / Gaps
Inner	Immediate neighbours: Chad, Benin, Niger, Cameroon, Ghana	Liberia (1990–1999), Sierra Leone (1991–2000)	ECOWAS diplomacy, mediation, peacekeeping, economic incentives	Sustainability, resource constraints, political volatility
Second	West African sub-region (15 ECOWAS members)	ECOMOG interventions, regional trade facilitation	Regional coordination, collective security, economic integration	Divergent member-state interests, limited evaluation of collective outcomes
Third	Broader Africa (AU, NEPAD	AU peacekeeping in Mali/Darfur, NEPAD development projects, AU reforms	Diplomatic advocacy, multilateral engagement, policy harmonization	Sparse empirical assessment, limited tracking of continental impact, coordination challenges

Source: Researchers (2026).

Consequently, Nigeria’s foreign policy is widely portrayed in the literature as operationalizing the Concentric Circles Theory across the inner, second, and third circles, translating Afrocentric principles into regional and continental engagements. While the inner and second circles are relatively well-documented in existing scholarship, significant analytical gaps remain regarding coordination efficiency, long-term effectiveness, and outcome measurement at the continental level. Addressing these gaps is essential for advancing understanding of how Nigeria’s regional and continental engagements align with its broader foreign policy objectives. The fourth circle, encompassing global and multilateral engagements, is examined separately in the subsequent section to preserve analytical clarity and avoid thematic overlap.

 

3-4 Extending the Outer Circle: Nigeria’s Global Strategic Priorities and Diplomatic Outcomes

The fourth concentric circle of Nigeria’s foreign policy reflects its engagement with countries outside Africa and multilateral institutions, including the United Nations (UN), the G20, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and strategic bilateral partners (Tijjani, 2024). This circle operationalizes the Concentric Circles Theory's assumption that resources are allocated rationally to areas of strategic importance, enabling Nigeria to project influence while maintaining its Afrocentric commitments (Ojo, 2018; Ogele, 2023). Unlike regional and continental priorities, the fourth circle requires Nigeria to balance global obligations with African-centered policy principles, often navigating complex multipolar dynamics, competing interests, and resource limitations.

Nigeria’s engagement with the United Nations exemplifies its commitment to global peace and security, extending beyond continental responsibilities. The country has contributed significantly to UN peacekeeping operations, including missions in Lebanon, Congo, and South Sudan, demonstrating its operational capability and strategic influence on the global stage (Alkali and Usman, 2025). Participation in UN-led development and humanitarian initiatives complements Nigeria’s broader Afrocentric vision by linking African security and development to global policy frameworks. Despite these contributions, critical gaps remain in evaluating the impact of Nigeria’s UN engagement on its strategic objectives, as most of the literature focuses on troop contributions rather than outcomes or policy influence (Dauda et al., 2019).

Nigeria’s role in global economic forums, such as the G20, IMF, and World Bank, reflects efforts to shape economic governance in ways that support Africa’s interests. As Africa’s largest economy and a key regional player, Nigeria leverages these platforms to advocate for debt relief, development financing, and trade policies conducive to African development (Alkali & Usman, 2025 & Ogele, 2023). However, the literature highlights a tension between pursuing Afrocentric priorities and accommodating global financial norms, illustrating the challenge of integrating regional commitments with global economic diplomacy. Empirical analysis of the effectiveness of these strategies remains sparse, indicating a research gap in assessing outcomes of Nigeria’s economic diplomacy on both regional and continental development.

Also, the bilateral partnerships with global powers, including the United States, China, and the European Union, constitute another pillar of Nigeria’s outer-circle diplomacy. These partnerships span trade, investment, security cooperation, and technology transfer, and often complement Nigeria’s regional and continental initiatives. For example, Nigeria’s collaboration with the United States in counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel aligns both national security and African stability objectives (Ohwo, 2025; & Talibu, 2016). Yet, balancing external expectations with Afrocentric principles remains challenging, as global partners may pursue interests that are not fully aligned with Nigeria’s continental or regional commitments.

Despite these challenges, Nigeria has achieved notable successes in projecting influence through the fourth circle. These include securing leadership roles in UN committees, shaping development discussions at G20 forums, and participating in global peacekeeping initiatives that enhance its diplomatic credibility (Alkali et al., 2023; Alkali & Usman, 2025). Nonetheless, limitations persist, particularly in coordinating global engagement with regional and continental priorities, addressing resource constraints, and translating participation into measurable influence. Prospects for strategic global engagement lie in institutionalizing long-term policy frameworks that integrate Afrocentric principles with global diplomacy, enhancing Nigeria’s ability to navigate multipolar challenges while advancing both African and national interests.

Discussion and Findings

Theoretical Foundations of the Concentric Circles

The findings from this study reveal that Nigeria’s foreign policy behavior aligns significantly with the Concentric Circles Theory’s conceptualization of layered strategic priorities. Analysis of Nigeria’s engagements shows that geographic proximity and immediate security concerns consistently shape policy choices, corroborating the theory’s assumption that states prioritize relations with their closest neighbors over those with more distant actors. Scholars such as Akinyemi (2007) and Dauda et al. (2019) observe that this prioritization logic is evident in Nigeria’s pronounced involvement in West African peacekeeping and conflict resolution, particularly through ECOWAS interventions. The empirical evidence suggests that Nigeria’s foreign policy is not random or ad hoc; instead, it follows a predictable pattern wherein domestic and regional stability form the foundation for subsequent continental and global engagements.

Further, the rational allocation of foreign policy resources emerges as a distinct theme in the findings. Nigeria’s commitment of diplomatic, economic, and military resources to immediate neighbors and sub‑regional organizations reflects a deliberate strategy to maximize influence where the country’s strategic interests are most acute. This observation aligns with the theoretical expectation that state behavior is rational and strategically oriented.

The study also highlights a hierarchical sequencing of strategic interests, where Nigeria’s regional and continental engagements provide the basis for broader global involvement. This sequencing supports the theory’s assumption of a coherent order of priorities from domestic to international arenas, as articulated by Gambari (1984). By applying the proximity prioritization assumption, the analysis demonstrates how both geographic and strategic considerations condition Nigeria’s foreign policy choices. This theoretical lens thus enriches the interpretation of findings by linking observed diplomatic behavior to established conceptual logic, reaffirming the utility of Concentric Circles Theory for explaining foreign policy dynamics in the Nigerian context.

4-2 Afrocentrism

The findings indicate that Afrocentrism remains a central guiding principle shaping Nigeria’s foreign policy, both in conception and practice. Analysis of Nigeria’s diplomatic engagements confirms that the country consistently prioritizes African interests in its regional and continental policies, reflecting a commitment to Pan-Africanism, collective security, and continental development (Dauda et al., 2019; Garba, 2022). The study observes that Nigeria’s normative orientation, rooted in moral responsibility and the promotion of African agency, differentiates its approach from purely realist foreign policy models, emphasizing principled diplomacy alongside strategic calculations (Akinyemi, 2007; Talibu & Muhammad, 2016). Empirical evidence from peacekeeping missions and mediation efforts within ECOWAS and the AU illustrates how Afrocentric commitments have been operationalized to advance regional stability, though their effectiveness varies across contexts.

Historically, Nigeria’s post-independence identity strongly influenced the emergence of Afrocentric foreign policy. The analysis identifies a pattern in which Nigeria’s interventions in Southern Africa and its engagement in conflict resolution were not merely ad hoc but reflected a deliberate effort to align national prestige with continental responsibilities. However, the study also notes that much of the existing literature remains descriptive, offering limited critical evaluation of how Afrocentric principles translate into measurable regional outcomes, highlighting a persistent empirical gap.

The research further highlights that Afrocentrism shapes Nigeria’s diplomatic identity, guiding both policy formulation and operational choices. Continuity in policy statements and official declarations across successive administrations reinforces the country’s commitment to African unity and collective development (Akinyemi, 2007; Oshewolo, 2021). Nonetheless, balancing Afrocentric priorities with global obligations presents ongoing challenges, particularly as Nigeria engages multipolar economic and security systems. By applying the Concentric Circles Theory, specifically the assumption of hierarchical sequencing of strategic interests, the analysis demonstrates that Afrocentric principles inform Nigeria’s prioritization of regional and continental commitments before extending resources to global engagements. This theoretical lens clarifies the interplay between normative commitments and strategic decision-making, offering a structured understanding of how Nigeria operationalizes Afrocentrism within its layered foreign policy framework.

4-3-Operationalising the Concentric Circles

The analysis of Nigeria’s regional and continental foreign policy engagements demonstrates a systematic operationalization of the Concentric Circles Theory, particularly across the inner, second, and third circles. Findings indicate that Nigeria consistently prioritizes immediate neighbors, such as Chad, Benin, Niger, Cameroon, and Ghana, as central to its security and political stability. This prioritization reflects the assumption of proximity in foreign relations, whereby the intensity and frequency of diplomatic interactions are most significant with geographically proximate states (Gambari, 1984; Campus, 2025). Evidence from Liberia and Sierra Leone illustrates how Nigeria employed a combination of diplomacy, peacekeeping, and economic incentives to stabilize neighboring countries, confirming that policy decisions are strategically oriented to protect national and regional interests (Akinyemi, 2007; Alkali et al., 2023).

At the sub-regional level, findings highlight Nigeria’s leadership within ECOWAS as indicative of its broader commitment to collective security and economic integration. Engagements such as ECOMOG interventions and regional trade facilitation projects demonstrate the deliberate allocation of resources to strengthen institutional cooperation and promote stability across West Africa (Dauda et al., 2019; Alkali et al., 2023b). Nonetheless, the study identifies persistent challenges, including divergent national priorities among member states and limited assessment of the long-term impact of these initiatives. This suggests that, while hierarchical sequencing of strategic interests is evident in practice, coordination efficiency remains an area requiring improvement.

Similarly, continental engagements through the AU and NEPAD reveal a further extension of Nigeria’s concentric strategy. Findings indicate active participation in peacekeeping missions in Mali, Darfur, and the Central African Republic, alongside contributions to governance, infrastructure, and development projects (Yusuf et al., 2025). These actions reflect both policy continuity and strategic prioritization, demonstrating that Nigeria leverages its regional influence to achieve continental stability. By applying the assumption of rational resource allocation, the analysis shows that Nigeria directs its diplomatic, military, and economic instruments to maximize strategic impact. The Concentric Circles Theory thus provides a robust analytical lens, clarifying how the sequencing of priorities from immediate neighbors to broader Africa that shapes operational decision-making and links Afrocentric principles to concrete policy interventions.

 

4-4 Extending the Outer Circle and Nigeria’s Global Strategic Priorities

The findings demonstrate that Nigeria’s engagement in the fourth concentric circle reflects a strategic and deliberate allocation of resources aimed at projecting influence while sustaining Afrocentric commitments. Engagements with multilateral institutions, including the United Nations, G20, IMF, and World Bank, underscore the country’s efforts to link African development and security concerns with global governance frameworks. Contributions to UN peacekeeping operations in Lebanon, Congo, and South Sudan illustrate Nigeria’s operational capacity and strategic intent, aligning with observations by Alkali and Usman (2025), who note that such engagements reinforce Nigeria’s diplomatic credibility on the international stage. Similarly, Tijjani (2024) affirms that Nigeria’s outer-circle diplomacy reflects conscious prioritization of strategic global engagements, consistent with rational resource allocation as outlined in Concentric Circles Theory.

In global economic diplomacy, findings indicate that Nigeria leverages international forums to advocate for African-centered policies, including debt relief and development financing. Ogele (2023) concurs that Nigeria’s engagement in the G20 and multilateral financial institutions reflects both Africa-focused priorities and pragmatic alignment with global economic norms. These strategies demonstrate the deliberate direction of foreign policy resources toward areas where Nigeria’s strategic influence can be maximized, a point supported by Alkali et al. (2023), who observe that such global participation complements regional and continental initiatives without undermining Afrocentric commitments.

Furthermore, bilateral relations with global powers including the United States, China, and the European Union—further illustrate Nigeria’s rational deployment of diplomatic, security, and economic instruments to achieve overlapping national and continental objectives (Ohwo, 2025; Talibu, 2016). Applying the Concentric Circles Theory’s assumption of rational resource allocation clarifies how Nigeria sequences its priorities, ensuring that global engagements reinforce rather than conflict with domestic, regional, and continental interests (Ojo, 2018). This theoretical lens affirms that Nigeria’s foreign policy is both strategic and coherent, integrating normative Afrocentric principles with global diplomacy.

Conclusion

This study critically examines Nigeria’s foreign policy through the lens of the Concentric Circles Theory, providing a structured framework to analyze the country’s Afrocentric commitments and strategic priorities. The first part of the study covers the theoretical foundations of the Concentric Circles Theory, demonstrating how the framework conceptualizes foreign relations as layered priorities. It clarifies the sequential ordering of domestic security, regional stability, continental engagement, and global interactions. Findings indicate that Nigeria’s prioritization of immediate security and domestic interests establishes the foundation for subsequent regional and continental policy choices, reflecting the hierarchical logic embedded in the theory. The second part addresses Nigeria’s operationalization of Afrocentric principles within regional and continental contexts. Evidence shows that normative commitments to Africa are consistently aligned with practical diplomacy, exemplified through leadership roles within ECOWAS and the African Union. Peacekeeping missions, mediation efforts, and economic initiatives illustrate the deliberate sequencing of foreign policy resources to stabilize neighboring states and support continental development. While the inner and second circles are relatively well documented, challenges persist regarding the efficiency of coordination and the long-term sustainability of interventions at the continental level. The third part delves into Nigeria’s global strategic priorities, highlighting the fourth concentric circle. Analysis indicates that engagement with multilateral institutions and major global partners enables Nigeria to advance Africa-focused interests while managing competing international pressures. Participation in UN peacekeeping, G20 economic advocacy, and bilateral partnerships demonstrates a rational allocation of resources, enabling Nigeria to maintain global influence without compromising regional or continental commitments. The fourth circle, however, remains complex, requiring careful integration of Afrocentric principles with global diplomacy in a multipolar environment. The fourth part synthesizes the interplay across all four concentric circles, showing that Nigeria’s foreign policy exhibits both continuity and adaptability. Effective sequencing and prioritization enable influence projection from domestic to global levels while maintaining alignment between normative objectives and strategic interests. Consequently, this study adopts a historical, exploratory, qualitative research design. The Concentric Circles Theory guided the analysis, and the data were examined through thematic interpretation. Overall, the findings affirm that Nigeria’s foreign policy reflects a structured, layered approach, operationalizing Afrocentric principles across regional and global contexts while illustrating how hierarchical sequencing and rational resource allocation inform practical diplomatic decision-making.

References

Akindoyin, D. I. A., & Isaac, D. (2025). Afrocentrism and the Nigerian reciprocated and unreciprocated foreign policy: A review. FUDMA International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 38–50.

Akinyemi, A. B. (2007). Nigeria’s foreign policy: Continuity and change. Lagos: Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.

Alkali, B. M., Fuad, O. M. B., & Osman, N. B. (2023b). Nigeria's multilateral approach in West Africa: A case study of Côte d'Ivoire electoral violence. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology, 10(2), 2030–2040.

Alkali, B. M., Othman, M. F. B., & Osman, N. B. (2023a). Nigeria's Afrocentric foreign policy thrust in West Africa: An appraisal of Cote d'Ivoire's political crises 2010–2011.

Alkali, M. B., & Usman, A. F. (2025). Hegemonic influence and regional crisis management: A neo-institutionalist analysis of Nigeria’s role in ECOWAS. Journal of African Resilience and Advancement Research.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide.

Campus, O. A. (2025). Nigeria’s Afrocentric foreign policy: An appraisal of reciprocity dynamics.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

Dauda, M., Ahmad, M. Z. B., & Keling, M. F. (2019). Foreign policy and Afrocentricism: An appraisal of Nigeria’s role. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 5(01), 107–124.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nigeria. (2021). Nigeria’s foreign policy and regional engagement: Annual review. Government of Nigeria.

Folorunso, G. I., Duruji, M. M., & Chidozie, F. C. (2024). Appraisement of glocalisation in the context of Nigeria’s foreign policy: A concentric approach. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 11(1), 2286735.

Gambari, I. A. (1984). Nigeria’s foreign policy and African unity. Lagos: Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.

Garba, D. (2022). Sixty years of Nigeria’s Afrocentric foreign policy: Achievements, challenges and way forward. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2).

Ibrahim, A., & Babangida, A. J. (2025). Exploring Nigeria's national interest in the context of international relations. Academy Journal of Multidisciplinary Doctoral Research, 3(1), 16–28.

Ogele, E. P. (2023). The Hegemon's role: Nigeria's foreign policy and its impact on West African regional security and cooperation. International Journal Pedagogy of Social Studies, 10(1), 43–56.

Ohwo, C. A. (2025). Strategic partnerships and Nigeria’s national security. African Journal of Social Issues, 8(1), 395–420.

Oshewolo, S. (2021). A reconsideration of the Afrocentric principle in Nigeria’s foreign policy framework. GeoJournal, 86(3), 1503–1510.

Oshewolo, S., Nwozor, A., Fayomi, F., & Oluwatuyi, M. (2021). “Instrumentalizing” the United Nations: Nigeria and its quest for regional leadership in Africa. World Affairs, 184(1), 77–100.

Pant, K. R. (2023). Eight moments in the history of qualitative research. AMC Journal (Dhangadhi), 4(1), 38–44.

Shehu, E. A., & Garba, A. K. (2020). Concentric circles theory and Nigeria’s foreign policy 2015–2019. Asian Journal of Current Research, 5(1), 1–8.

Talibu, O. (2016). Multilateralism and the hegemonic posture of a regional power: A case study of Nigeria, 1960–2015 (PhD thesis, University Utara Malaysia, Changlun, Malaysia).

Talibu, O., & Ahmad, M. Z. (2016). Empiricizing regional hegemony in the periphery: A case study of Nigeria. International Affairs and Global Strategy, 42, 8–18.

ThisDayLive. (2024). Nigeria’s foreign policy and the challenge of multipolar influence.

Tijjani, A. (2024). Assessment of Nigeria's Afrocentric foreign policy: A case study of President Olusegun Obasanjo's administration. International Journal, 4(5), 917–921.

Yusuf, M. S., Salihu, M. A., & Oyigebe, P. L. (2025). NEPAD and development in Africa: An analysis. Kashere Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3(2), 25–32..