Nigeria, The United States of America, and the Christian Genocide Narrative: Cunning Geo-Strategic Manoeuvres or Professed Love of Nigerian Christians?

In Tunde Kelani’s Saworo Idẹ, Baba Ọ̀pálábá who played the role of a sage gave a counsel to the hurriedly behaved Oloye Séríkí when they were concerned about insecurity regarding the lost Adé-idẹ - this was against the backdrop of the king’s determination to overly rely on foreign loggers at any cost to find the lost jewel. In his usual way of speaking to complex matters with short, but deep words, he said “óle ní ohún o bọ́ tun ílẹ́kún ilé rẹ se, ò ńjó ò ń yọ́” - A burglar offers to fix your doors and you're not vigilant. He also gave the parable of a pigeon that dances with a hawk.

The above is an appetiser to contextualise Nigeria’s relationship with the United States of America, especially in the wake of a manufactured ‘Christian genocide’ that is more than often, parroted by Riley Moore - a United States Congressman whose previous actions have been described as depraved after his ignoble pose at CECOT, a prison in El Salvador. Long before Riley Moore was born in 1980, observers in Africa warned against the allure of neo-colonialists who come with the guise of ‘ethical concerns’ and ‘vanguards of morality’ - noble characters they arguably lack - to manipulate gullible global southerners. Writing in August 1970, Allan West, in his long, sober and deep reflection concluded his essay entitled Nigeria should not be client state by saying:

Nigeria is an independent country. No more an appendage of any imperialist superpower. We should be free to choose our friends be they from the East or West. We should not become a client state.^[1] 

This thoughtful warning, buried in Allan West’s reflection on the Nigerian civil war, relations with the vicious, brutal and exploitative Western colonial powers who had just been made to pack their bags ten years earlier after a century of ruthless violence, mineral exploitation, pillage, and dehumanizing evil - was not just a warning for the 70s, but for all times. The core of the message was clear; Nigeria as a sovereign state must use its foreign policy as a tool to advance her defined interests. In doing this, we must neither lean towards the west, nor be aligned with the east. In fact, this rational geopolitical balance has guided Nigeria’s foreign policy for long with considerable impetus during the Cold War and beyond - this is similar to what Nigeria’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Tuggar recently called strategic autonomy.

Fast forward to the 17th of February 2026, with the arm-twisting pretext and allegation of a ‘Christian-only genocide’ in Nigeria, a group of ‘concerned’ Americans are seeking to modify our decades long tradition of geostrategic non-alignment by telling us what country should be considered as security ‘allies’ for procuring military weapons and what countries should be exempted. This is evident in two key areas as part of the recommendations by the United States of America’s House Appropriations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee to Nigeria:

1. request to abandon Russian military weapons,
2. counteracting China, and working directly with selected NATO member states such as France, Hungary, the United Kingdom and ‘other international partners’

The first pertinent question is how do these points, buried carefully in the narrative of protecting Nigerian Christians advance or protect Nigeria’s interests or guarantee internal stability for Africa’s largest population and one of its largest economies? The clear answer is that those two points do not protect Nigeria or safeguard the Christian community in the country. With the above two points, the link between pretending to help Nigeria address insecurity on one hand and making Nigeria a client state for geostrategic posturing on the other hand - by peddling a false narrative of intervening on behalf of Nigerian Christians - is apparent. Despite this, it is our duty to re-consider the origin of Nigeria’s crises and the failure of the USA to admit the complexity of insecurity in Nigeria in favor of a sellable, simple and false narrative that appeals to some local radical evangelists , and promotes USA’s interests.

Background to the Crises in Nigeria

First, it must be stated without any prejudice that Nigeria is burning after years of political instability and poor capacity in the area of security. We have also been affected by the collapse of security in Libya among other underlying security threats either historically planted or contemporaneously instigated by the West.^[2] Internally, the Middle Belt (north central), the northeast and the southeast have been cesspools of murderous political violence for many years.  The most challenging forms of insecurity so far have been banditry, terrorism and communal violence in the northeast and the Middle Belt. Here, it must be highlighted that Muslims, Christians and other Nigerians have been affected; churches have been burnt, mosques destroyed and people displaced by bandits across Kogi, Kwara and Benue States among others. It is the responsibility of the Nigerian state to protect its citizens from violence that affects millions of people. Successive governments have been subpar in their efforts to totally curtail this complicated series of violence that is coloured by economic, tribal, ethnic, political and religious undertones. Rather than accept this complexity and assist Nigeria without any prejudice to global strategic maneuvers, the USA is bent on water-boarding Nigeria with Trump’s gun-blazing threat into accepting a singular unintelligible narrative of a simple Christian genocide that totally ignores complex interplay of ethno-religious, political and social conflicts that affect all Nigerians. In doing this, they are simply selling a narrative that ‘dresses’ their strategic interest in the surplice of Christian protectionism. This is evident in the so-called report on Nigeria where geo-strategic elements that serve the geopolitical interests of the US under Donald Trump have been infused into the narrative and action-plans.

Dictating Nigeria’s Foreign Policy for Arms Procurement 

In the recent report by the US Foreign Affairs Committee, it was clearly stated without any mincing of words, and with some degrees of pomposity that Nigeria must “…expand security cooperation with the United States, including by divestment of Russian military equipment for American military equipment through sales and financing”^[3]. For any Nigerian with an inkling of Nigeria’s diplomatic history and our practices of international politics, it is clear that the recommendations by another foreign state, regardless of its status to dictate where to buy our much needed military equipment, is a big interference that aims to create a dependency problem for Nigeria - a trap that must be avoided at all costs. This is especially dangerous because over the years, we have seen that the USA is not dependable or consistent in its foreign relations. The present administration has gone from threatening to take over Greenland by force to advertising Gaza as a real estate investment to settlers. Beyond the present Trump administration, the problem of consistency and ‘strategic disappointment’ is also clear in how the USA has dealt with the Kurds and other minority groups in West Asia, which have been used as expendable puns for geostrategic pleasures. Nigeria’s military relation with the USA itself is telling.

During the peak of Nigeria's counter terrorism operations against Boko Haram, Abuja was denied access to crucial military hardware. For example, “in July 2015, the United States of America refused to sell advanced weapons to Nigeria as a result of the Leahy Law”^[4] - a mere hypocritical instrument of political control as we can see from the unconditional support to Israel despite its recorded gross human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. With the ban on sales to Nigeria, it was noted that we naturally “tilted towards Pakistan, South Africa and Russia in a bid to fill the supply vacuum left by the USA”.^[5] Yet, the very China and Russia that have been able to help balance our military procurement over the decades are the ones we have been instructed to sever military ‘diplomatic’ ties with by Trump’s USA. Another historical reference point (and history must guide us) for why we must be cautious with the ‘proposed’ reliance on the United States of America is in a less known story once shared with us by Emeritus Professor Bolaji Akinyemi. During a session of his podcast - ThruMYeyes - he narrated how Nigeria’s grand plans to build a massive plantation was thwarted by the United States of America after promising to help Nigeria, as against our request for support from their rivals. In the end, Nigeria lost out in our effort to become self-reliant and a global competitor. 

Contesting Chinese and Russian Influence in Nigeria

Another point that will catch the attention of any reasonably informed Nigerian in the document is the stipulation signalling USA’s intent to use Nigeria to “counter adversaries in the (Sahel, West African sub- and African) region, including the Chinese Communist Party and Russian Federation.”^[6] Effectively, this suggests the preparedness of the USA to drag Nigeria further into its unhealthy geo-strategic competition in the Sahel where Russia and China currently enjoy popular support. Having been forced out of  Air Base 101 in Niamey and Airbase 201 in Agadez, the desire to find a stable foothold close to the Sahel and away from the Kotoka International Airport in Ghana is very clear. It goes without saying that the United States of America needs a strategic partner across the northern, southern, eastern and western hemispheres of Africa. Here, Nigeria is the primary goal as the pre-eminent regional power with one leg in the Sahel and another on the coast. However, what is more important for Nigeria is the fulfilment of our own national interest which is better guaranteed by maintaining friendly relations with the west and the east alike.

Our History with China and Russia

Nigeria has independent ties with Russia and China. We’ve used countless Russian military platforms over the years. The Nigerian Air Force has deployed MiG-17s, MiG-15UTI, Ilyushin Il-28, Mil Mi-17, Mil Mi-24, 9M120 Ataka-V and other Russian technologies at some points and must remain open to receiving more advanced military equipment from Russia in the future. In 2021, we also signed a landmark Military-Technical Cooperation with Russia. This Soviet/Russo-Nigerian relation has been consistent, thanks to our membership of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Bilateral relations with China have been on the ascendancy, too. We have had special arrangements in many areas with the notable Naira-Yuan swap deal remaining an important flexible cornerstone for trades. China is a strategic development partner for Nigeria; different Chinese companies execute major contracts in Nigeria from mega tasks like railway corridors to lithium factories. In the area of defence, Chinese companies already expressed interests in helping to build defence companies to produce military hardware that will facilitate technology transfer to Nigeria - an important strategic step that would be difficult for the United States to match. Despite this, Nigeria must be strict with some recalcitrant Chinese citizens who have committed crimes or maybe guilty in aiding and abetting bandits through security payment for mining sites. 

The cunning recommendation by the US that Nigeria must “enlist the support of international partners, including France, Hungary, and the United Kingdom”^[7] at the exclusive expense of China and Russia is to the detriment of our vertical sovereignty. Despite the disrespect by France over the years, their open support for the disintegration of Nigeria in the past, and the countless atrocities against Africans, we have maintained good diplomatic relations with Paris under President Tinubu. We have also maintained professional military partnership with Hungary even with the known racism of its leadership against non-Europeans, including Africans living in the West.

From the analysis thus far, the professed ‘love’ for Nigerian Christians by the USA is not any more than the professed love of a rabbit guarding a field of carrots - it’s for their strategic interests. The Christian ‘cover’ is just a smoke screen. Otherwise, why would we be told to forego important bilateral agreements and acquisition of military weapons from Russia and China? In explicit terms, Nigeria will be committing strategic mistakes by tilting towards the United States of America in the manner that was recommended by the US. It is an attempt to make Nigeria a client state. Above all, it’s in our interest to avoid relying on any single state or bloc. This is because we exist in an unstable international environment characterized by multiplexity and realpolitik. We must acknowledge that, to dine with any of the great or superpowers, especially the United States of America, we must keep a long, long spoon.

Wazeer Murtala has a background in History and International Relations/Strategic Studies. He has previously published articles and essays on Historiography, COIN, military recruitment and other aspects of defence studies. You can follow him on X/Twitter via @wazeerr. You can reach through [email protected].

Endnotes