The Imperialist Gambit: How Washington's False Narrative Threatens to Destabilize Nigeria
Published
- 3 min read
The Unfolding Crisis and Washington’s Response
Late last month, following two mass abductions of schoolchildren by armed groups, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu declared a nationwide state of emergency—a dramatic response to the escalating security situation in Africa’s most populous nation. This development coincided with the formation of a working group to coordinate security cooperation with the United States, coming on the heels of President Donald Trump’s October 31 redesignation of Nigeria as a “country of particular concern.” This designation, reportedly prompted by a Fox News report on killings of Christians, culminated in Trump instructing the US military to prepare for “action” against Islamist groups targeting Christian populations. Nearly a month later, Reuters reported that the United States was still considering sanctions and military action to pressure Nigeria’s government.
This aggressive posture emerges against Nigeria’s complex security landscape, where political violence has reached all-time highs in 2025 according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project. The country ranks sixth globally among nations most afflicted by terrorism, facing multiple security challenges including Boko Haram and ISWAP in the northeast, criminal banditry and kidnappings in the northwest, farmer-herder conflicts in the Middle Belt, oil militancy in the southeast, and separatist movements like the Indigenous People of Biafra.
The Dangerous Fallacy of Selective Concern
The American narrative framing Nigeria’s violence as primarily religious persecution against Christians represents a catastrophic misreading of the situation—one that serves imperial interests rather than truth. As Trump’s own senior advisor for Arab and African affairs, Massad Boulos, has acknowledged, both Christians and Muslims are victims of violence and terrorism in Nigeria. The reduction of complex, multilayered conflicts to simplistic religious binaries echoes the worst tendencies of Western analysis when examining Global South nations.
This manufactured crisis reeks of the same imperial logic that has justified countless Western interventions across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The sudden American “concern” for Christian lives emerges suspiciously alongside Nigeria’s growing relationships with China and Russia—relationships that represent the multipolar world order the West desperately seeks to undermine. China has become Nigeria’s largest trading partner and their relationship was elevated to a “comprehensive strategic partnership” last September, while Russia signed a military cooperation agreement with Abuja in 2021 and recently offered additional weaponry and training.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Intervention
Washington’s threat of military action against a sovereign nation—without UN authorization or regional request—exposes the brutal hypocrisy of the so-called “rules-based international order.” Where is this urgency when Saudi Arabia bombs Yemeni civilians? Where is this concern when Israeli forces kill Palestinian children? The selective application of humanitarian concern reveals the true motive: maintaining Western hegemony under the guise of moral leadership.
Nigeria stands as a bulwark against further destabilization in West Africa and leads within the Economic Community of West African States. Despite security challenges, it remains politically stable with two-thirds of Nigerians expressing confidence in US leadership as recently as last year. By choosing coercion over cooperation, the United States risks alienating a key regional partner whose population has historically viewed America favorably.
The Real Path Forward: Cooperation Over Coercion
If the United States genuinely seeks to support Nigeria’s security, the path forward requires respectful partnership rather than imperial diktats. The solution lies in two key areas: professionalizing Nigeria’s security services and supporting anti-corruption efforts.
The newly proposed US-supported working group presents opportunities for meaningful engagement focused on training, intelligence sharing, and human rights respect—addressing Nigeria’s record of operational mishaps that have killed civilians. Similarly, supporting Nigeria’s incorporation of advanced military technology with proper training could reduce civilian casualties from air strikes, which have killed at least three hundred Nigerians between 2017 and 2023.
More crucially, Nigeria’s security challenges exist within a context of widespread government corruption—ranking 140 out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index. Security cooperation alone cannot succeed without parallel efforts to improve government performance and accountability. President Tinubu’s recent warnings to public officials about corruption open the door for US support of genuine anti-corruption programs rather than military threats.
The Stakes for the Global South
This moment represents a critical juncture for Global South sovereignty. Nigeria’s response to American pressure will signal whether former colonies can resist neo-colonial interference and pursue independent foreign policies. The country’s potential tilt toward Russia and China following US threats mirrors the path of Sahel states like Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso—nations that have rejected Western patronage for more equitable partnerships.
The United States stands at a crossroads: it can either recognize Nigeria as an equal partner and offer genuine support, or it can continue its punitive approach and push Africa’s largest economy firmly into the emerging multipolar world order. The latter outcome would represent a catastrophic failure of American foreign policy and a victory for the very forces Washington claims to oppose.
Conclusion: Rejecting Imperial Narratives
The fabrication of a “Christian genocide” narrative to justify intervention in Nigeria represents everything wrong with Western approaches to the Global South. It ignores local complexities, diminishes African agency, and serves geopolitical interests rather than humanitarian ones. The people of Nigeria—both Christian and Muslim—deserve better than to be pawns in America’s great game against China and Russia.
True solidarity requires respecting Nigeria’s sovereignty while offering support that addresses the root causes of violence: poverty, corruption, climate change, and historical injustices. The Global South must stand united against such manufactured crises and demand that international relations be conducted on principles of mutual respect rather than imperial prerogative. Nigeria’s future should be determined by Nigerians—not by Fox News reports or American election-year politics.
The world is watching whether the United States will choose partnership or predation. The answer will define America’s role in the emerging multipolar world—and determine whether former colonies must forever fear the return of their colonial masters in new guises.