Nigeria caught cold since early November from the sneeze of President Donald Trump’s twitter handle. The tweet triggered cynical and optimistic narratives in the entire landscape. It created fear, anxiety, and jubilation in certain quarters. The ripple effects traversed the national fault-lines of ethnicity and religion. Even the opposition elements want to make political capital out of it. Two officials of United States government had confirmed that it was Fox News report on endless killing of Christians in Nigeria that prompted President Trump to declare Nigeria as a “country of particular concern.”
Part of the warlike social media declaration reads thus, “If the Nigeria Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing’, to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities… I am therefore instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!”
To put the issues in perspective, it is a known fact that Nigeria is under siege. However, the country’s notoriety as a killing field predates the present administration. What began in the Northeast as insurgency soon spread uncontrollably to the Northwest, Northcentral, and Southeast geopolitical zones with splinters of hydra-headedness. There was a time the Abuja-Kaduna highway was under the control of criminal gangs. Banditry dominated soft targets in rural communities and farmlands in Southern Kaduna, Benue, Plateau, Taraba, etc. Tales of horror, sorrow, tears, arson, and trepidation abound. The crises of insecurity turned seemingly intractable and the nation moved on despite the incremental number of unaccounted deaths.
In some states, the criminals carved out swathes of territories and bushes as theatres of operation. And anybody who ventures to cross the “axis of evil” must either be trapped, hounded, extorted, or killed. As endangered species, security agents became targets of cold-blooded annihilation. The insurgents assumed “a state within a state.” Land grabbers in agrarian communities in Nigeria’s Middle Belt walk the streets with impunity after sacking and forcefully displacing the locals from their homestead with sophisticated weapons. No arrests. No prosecution. No wielding of big stick as a deterrent.
This reign of terror undermines the capacity of Nigerian state to secure lives and property. Impliedly or expressively, Nigeria’s government appears overwhelmed and helpless. The unending bloodletting continues to raise suspicion and solidifies the impression of complicity by security agencies with cases of leakage of intelligence, exposure of informants, and noticeable inter-agency rivalry. The pushback from the insurgents also lends credence to the uncoordinated and lackluster delivery. Yet, for several years, the security and defence budgets had been jerked up to trillions of naira.
As such, the condolence messages issued by successive governments after violent attacks scarcely soothe the pains of victims and bereaved families. Citizens expect impactful actions and not well-crafted, hollow speeches, which end up as empty rhetoric. With time, the legitimacy of Nigerian government and its protective firepower over the defenseless came under question. Hence, the latest resolve by President Trump is seen by those at the receiving end of insecurity as a welcome development and the beginning of justice to the cries of innocent blood wasted over the years.
On the other hand, the tweet sparked off new debates and controversy. Scholars, diplomats, statesmen, policy makers, global media, and even the civil society have argued along the pros and cons of the intended localized military action in an independent country. Antagonists of direct intervention in domestic affairs of a sovereign nation allege an ulterior motive. Evidently, the U.S. historic role as the “world police force” has been abused over the years by Uncle Sam. Thus, there are divergent interpretations to the mooted emergency military action in Nigeria.
First, some see it as a ploy for regime change. Tinubu’s alliance with BRICS is a counterpoise to the US hegemony in the global political economy. Second, the move could be to gain a strategic environment for proxy muscle-flexing with rivals foraying into the subregion. Already, Russia has built strong ties in the Sahel and with former Francophone countries and close-door neighbours of Nigeria. Third, some international relations experts also perceive the ‘goodwill’ as a ‘new scramble’ for West Africa. Hence, losing Nigeria, the biggest black nation to adversaries like China and Russia, would be a strategic blunder to the U.S. power projection. Generally, opinions are varied from the standpoints of morality, faith, ideology, prejudices, partisanship, regional alliances, and national interests.
In all, there are “vile stereotypes” that America under Trump is up to something in Nigeria. Though the characterization of killings in Nigeria as Christian genocide looks divisive, the truth is that Christian community in northern Nigeria are targets of extermination, sometimes through jungle justice, and nothing happens to even known culprits. A Lagos-based legal practitioner, Ndubuisi Nwaokorie stated that “Anyone saying that Christians in Nigeria, particularly in the North have not been victims of deliberate fatal attacks for the past decade or so is a LIAR.” The whole truth however, is that the Christians, Muslims, and people of other faiths are not spared in the crossfire. Bullets do not know age, colour, tribe, creed, or religion. But on balance, we cannot under-represent the years of scorched-earth approach in dealing with Christians in northern Nigeria.
Beyond the intendment of military action which President Tinubu has opted to engage through diplomatic finesse and persuasion, Nigerians want to see concrete results in routing out these criminal elements. If need be, heads should roll. It is obvious that Nigeria needs help and it must be willing to ask for it. Killings have become so rampant and endless that most people prefer Trump’s ‘recolonization’ if it will give them a secured environment. Nobody should be under any illusion that the solidarity press releases from China and EU are self-serving. Let the new security chiefs push the heat on the criminals. Otherwise, Trump will give all of us the heat.
