Bismarck, South Africa, and the Limits of Nationalism: Why Nigeria Must Reconsider the Rules of Engagement

By Frank Ofili

After my last piece on this subject, I am forced to, once again, revisit the recurring outbreaks of xenophobic violence in South Africa, particularly against fellow Africans. The socio-political phenomenon invites comparison with an earlier chapter in world history – the nationalist policies of Otto von Bismarck.

Bismarck was a German statesman who unified the German states into the German Empire in 1871 and served as its first chancellor, earning the title “Iron Chancellor” for his pragmatic and power-driven diplomacy.

But he was, above all, a state-builder. Having unified Germany in 1871, he became deeply concerned with preserving what he regarded as the cultural, political, and demographic integrity of the new German Empire. He viewed certain immigrant and minority populations, especially Poles in Prussia, as potential threats to national cohesion. His policies sought to limit their influence, encourage assimilation, and, in some cases, remove those considered incompatible with the interests of the state.

While the historical circumstances are different, the underlying logic bears a striking resemblance to sentiments often expressed during periods of anti-immigrant agitation in South Africa. Foreign Africans are frequently accused of taking jobs, straining public services, contributing to crime, or enjoying opportunities that should belong exclusively to South African citizens. In this narrative, the immigrant becomes the embodiment of national frustration.

The irony is profound.

Bismarck’s Germany was a rising European power seeking to consolidate a newly formed nation-state. South Africa, by contrast, is a country whose liberation struggle was sustained by the solidarity, sacrifices, and support of fellow Africans. Across the continent, nations opened their borders, offered sanctuary to exiles, and committed resources to the anti-apartheid cause. Among the most steadfast supporters was Nigeria, whose governments and citizens consistently championed South Africa’s freedom and often incurred significant diplomatic and economic costs in doing so.

If South Africa expects the benefits of continental leadership, continental markets, and continental goodwill, it must also uphold the principle that Africans living within its borders are entitled to safety, dignity, and equal protection under the law

Yet today, African migrants who arrive in South Africa in search of economic opportunity frequently find themselves portrayed not as brothers and sisters from a shared continent, but as unwelcome competitors. Shops are looted, homes are attacked, livelihoods are destroyed, and lives are sometimes lost simply because of nationality. Whatever legitimate concerns may exist regarding immigration management, violence against individuals can never be justified in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.

There is another lesson from Bismarck’s experience.

Nationalism can be a powerful force for unity, development, and nation-building. However, when nationalism becomes defined by hostility toward outsiders, it risks degenerating into exclusion, intolerance, and scapegoating. Economic stagnation, unemployment, inequality, and governance failures are complex challenges. They are rarely caused by immigrants, yet immigrants often become the most visible targets of public anger.

For Nigeria, the persistent recurrence of xenophobic attacks raises an uncomfortable question: should relations continue exactly as before when Nigerian citizens and businesses repeatedly bear the consequences of anti-foreign violence?

The answer need not be hostility, retaliation, or diplomatic confrontation. Rather, it should be the application of a legitimate and internationally recognised principle: reciprocity.

Reciprocity is a cornerstone of international relations. States routinely calibrate their policies toward other countries based on how their citizens and interests are treated abroad. If Nigerian nationals face recurring threats, losses, or discrimination in South Africa, Nigeria is entitled to review aspects of its bilateral engagement and insist upon stronger protections, greater accountability, and credible guarantees for its citizens.

Such measures could include more vigorous diplomatic protests whenever attacks occur, demands for prompt investigations and prosecution of perpetrators, periodic reviews of bilateral agreements and privileges, stronger consular support for Nigerians resident in South Africa, enhanced monitoring of the treatment of Nigerian businesses and investments, and the adoption of reciprocal measures where appropriate and consistent with international law.

Reciprocity is not a call for Nigerians to target South Africans, nor is it an argument against African solidarity. Rather, it is a call for mutual respect. Friendship between nations cannot be a one-way street. Partnerships endure when obligations are reciprocal and when the rights and dignity of citizens are protected on both sides.

However, reciprocity must ultimately be meaningful. Persistent attacks on Nigerians and other African immigrants cannot continue indefinitely without consequences. Expressions of concern and diplomatic assurances, while necessary, are insufficient if they are not accompanied by measurable action.

In my view, the Federal Government of Nigeria should formally communicate to the South African government that it expects clear, verifiable, and convincing measures to curb xenophobic violence, protect foreign African residents—particularly Nigerians—and ensure the arrest and prosecution of perpetrators. Such measures should be subject to a defined timeline and objective assessment.

If, within ninety days, the South African authorities fail to demonstrate genuine commitment and tangible progress in addressing the problem, Nigeria should consider stronger reciprocal responses.

These responses could include a comprehensive review of the operating environment and privileges enjoyed by South African-owned businesses in Nigeria. As a matter of principle, Nigeria should not be expected to provide unrestricted access to its vast market while its own citizens and other African nationals face repeated threats, intimidation, and violence in South Africa.

Accordingly, I believe the Federal Government should place South Africa on formal notice that continued failure to protect African immigrants and uphold the rule of law may necessitate the withdrawal of certain economic privileges and, where justified under Nigerian law and international obligations, the suspension, closure, or expulsion of South African-owned businesses operating in Nigeria.

Such a step would be extraordinary and should only be considered after diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. Nevertheless, meaningful partnerships require mutual responsibility. No sovereign state can be expected to remain indifferent when its citizens are repeatedly subjected to violence abroad without adequate protection or accountability.

South Africa remains one of Africa’s most important countries. Together, Nigeria and South Africa account for a substantial share of the continent’s economic output, diplomatic influence, and political leadership. Their relationship is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of xenophobia.

But genuine friendship requires honesty.

If South Africa expects the benefits of continental leadership, continental markets, and continental goodwill, it must also uphold the principle that Africans living within its borders are entitled to safety, dignity, and equal protection under the law. Likewise, Nigeria has a responsibility to ensure that its citizens abroad are not treated as expendable.

Bismarck’s legacy reminds us that nations often invoke self-preservation to justify exclusion. The challenge for modern Africa is to demonstrate that national interest and human dignity need not be enemies. An Africa that seeks greater integration, prosperity, and global relevance cannot simultaneously tolerate the persecution of Africans by fellow Africans.

And where that dignity is repeatedly violated, Nigeria should not respond with silence. It should respond with principled diplomacy, grounded in reciprocity, international law, and an unwavering commitment to the protection of its citizens. For diplomacy without consequences is merely rhetoric, and friendship without mutual respect is ultimately unsustainable.