Godwin Onuh Odeh, PhD Following President Trump's recent warning that Nigeria should “put its house in o...
Godwin Onuh Odeh, PhD Following President Trump's recent warning that Nigeria should “put its house in order” or face a possible U.S. military “guns‑a‑blazing” intervention, the debate that erupted has been less about the specifics of the threat and but more about what it means for a sovereign state to ask for help or be assisted when its own security forces are overwhelmed. The warning and the attention it generated shows in the last few days that the security trauma that Nigeria has been contending with for over a decade entered into a new international realm. The open involvement of China and its response to the United States – “to keep off and respect the territorial integrity of Nigeria as a sovereign” – raises more questions than answers. The same with European Union and other International Organizations which hitherto appears idly while the country side is being roamed by terrorists and bandits.
Of course, Mr.Trump administration’s language was unmistakable: “If the Nigerian 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”. His usage of the word, "Christian", raises sentiment giving the ethnic and religious complexity and plurality of the Nigerian State. The ruling political party too with its Muslim-Muslim Presidents ( the president and the vice president) appears to have capitalise on that to politicise and as well seek pity from the Muslim audience as and population, arguing that the entire narrative is being champion by disgruntled opposition elements in the polity. But why is the party in power for over two years and President Ahmed Bola Tinubu yet to appoint Ambassadors and High Commoners to its overseas and foreign Embassies and Commissions? Also, analysts and keen observers of Nigerian affairs and politics notes that, when the APC was the opposition, it had gone to President Barak Obama, in the name of what may be called genocide in Nigeria but returned without expected results. Whatever the case might be, both Christians and Muslims have been victim of heartless maiming and killing by insurgents and bandits. In the mindless enterprise of killing, it is glaring that majority of people killed were Christians and moreso that majority of Boko Haram terrorists and bandits ravaging the country are what may be called deviants in Islamic faith ( the acclaimed religion of peace) and Muslim community, as most genuine Muslims condems their action of atrocities. Being a Christian himself therefore , this background might have propelled President Trump to label the insecurity and kiling in Nigeria as "Christian genocide".Sentiment aside, as noted, people across religious board have loss quantum of lives and properties since 2009 and it appears our security apparatus is overwhelmed.The nation at the moment is at a crossroads, desperately in need of support whether from Europe, America, Asia and the Middle East. It is like a patient in the hospital anxiously waiting for pants of blood. It does not matter to him whether the blood donated is from a atheist , Buddhist , Christian , Muslim, Hinduist, Traditional religionist etc, the only thing is blood match ( O-, O+, A, B+ , B-) to save life. Life therefore, and the saving of it is the first and most important religion. For Nigerians of the moment, aim now is country that could help crush the lingering challenge of insecurity once and for all. At this juncture it should be clearly pointed out that the rhetoric not only threatened aid cuts but also hinted at unilateral military action, a move that many observers say breaches the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against a sovereign state without Security Council approval. However, the use of force here is not against a sovereign state; neither is to topple a legitimate government, but to crush terrorists and bandits, who are perpetrators of wanton death and destruction in Nigeria. Terrorists and bandits, are not bonafide and legitimate citizens because they are non law abiding, but rebels, which ought to be appropriately dealt with militarily. This was why the Nigerian military on its own has been engaging them contrary to how it relates with law abiding citizens. The United States is only coming to join forces or help Nigeria's military out in the crusade it has been caught in the web for over a decade without being able wriggle itself out. The core argument and tension succinctly capture in this treatise is articulated thus:
> “The point is, coming in to support fights insurgency doesn't and shouldn't be considered as violation of the United Nations regarding territorial integrity of Nigeria. Did bandits and terrorists regards sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria? Or are we saying they are part of internal problems that doesn't require external support when we know that our own security are not competent enough. This calls to reconsideration of the concept of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria.”
In reconceptualising sovereignty, it is argued that the phenomenon is not as an absolute shield as thought in some quarters but a token and a symbol of responsibility that can be temporarily delegated when a state cannot protect its citizens. This is consistent with the tenets of the phenomenon since it's emergence consequent upon the Treaty of Westphalia when the idea of State having territory or boundary crystallized in towards the end of the 16th century. It can be lost and may be temporarily suspended; not a ticket of perpetuity as political preachers of eternal security would have us believe ( Morgenthau , 1991, pp.334-335). This understanding raises the pertinent question again and again:“Do bandits and terrorists regard sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria?”.Answer to this question forces us to confront the reality that non‑state actors do not respect borders; they exploit the very vacuum that a weakened state creates. So, Nigeria by the idea of "impenetrability" in the word of Morgenthau, maybe argued to have loss it's sovereignty on territorial ground given the way and manner bandits, terrorists, cattle rustlers, foreign mercenaries and herdsmen have exploited it's borders and territory (Hans J. Morgenthau 1991, p. 334),
Be that as it may, the international community is divided on the US move for legion of reasons, but here are glaring ones:
i. There is a legal perspectives. Under the UN Charter, a nation’s territorial integrity is inviolable unless the Security Council authorises collective action or the state consents to assistance. It is argued here that Trump’s unilateral threat, sits on a shaky legal ground. China and Russia, both major investors in Nigeria’s oil and infrastructure sectors, have echoed the need to respect Nigeria’s sovereignty, warning that external interference without consent would set a dangerous precedent. But Russia in particular have no moral conscience and right given how it invaded Ukraine unilaterally and has been plummeting it. For China, it maybe out of selfishness to protect her businesses and continue to benefit from the vacuum insecurity and prevalent corruption has created in the country.Above all these, President Ahmed Bola Tinubu have expressed readiness to accept US support and any other nations that could be of help in rescuing Nigeria from the firm grip of terrorist elements.
ii. There is a strategic and economic motives. The point here is , beyond the legal argument and debate, many analysts suspect geopolitical and economic undercurrents in the US warning and threat of intervention narrative.This is because Nigeria sits atop vast mineral resources–gold, lithium, and, of course, oil–making it a prize in the global scramble for critical minerals. The illegal exploitation and carting away with them by some uncropulos politicians and business men and women with foreign collaborators appeared to has fanned the ember of banditry and terrorism in the north east and north west to clandestinely protect the source and shield the illicit business. As a result, some commentators argue that the U.S. threat is as much about curbing Chinese influence and possibly join the illegal mining enterprise and and other businesses , and not so much about protecting Christians or ending insecurity. This does invalidate the fact that there is a crazy insecurity in Nigeria threatening the very fabric of the nation and it's continued existence. This piece make bold to say, for China's business to be thriving in the face of frightening insecurity that almost makes everyone to remain indoor rendered such business suspect and questionable.
More so, there is the humanitarian imperative as the well being of human persons remains the crux (core) in any climate of choking insecurity. The humanitarian argument stresses that when a government cannot guarantee the safety of its people, the international community has a moral duty to intervene, preferably through multilateral channels or with the host state’s consent. Thus, the notion of “sovereignty as responsibility” gained traction in recent years, particularly in discussions around the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. The United States as the first rated power, is at the fore front of fighting terrorism globally and it moves here, after warning, maybe not be out of context.
iv. In a more specific term, aside other voices, is the role of China, Russia, and other actors in this global game that is gradually turning Nigeria into the battlefield of the super powers ( conversation with Professor Okpeh O. Okpeh Jr, 6th November, 2025). China and Russia have extensive contracts and projects in Nigeria, with China leading in this enterprise while the influence of America is truly minimal. Moreso , one may question whether China’s with track record of capital punishment by killing corrupt leaders and strict border policy would tolerate Nigeria’s political and economic corruption as well as such porous border in its own soil.
The above paradox underscores a broader dilemma as great powers often champion principles (like non‑interference) that protect their own strategic interests, even while they pursue those very interests abroad. The African Union and ECOWAS have warned that unilateral threats undermine continental sovereignty and the principle of African solutions to African problems. The question is, where were ECOWAS and AU when terrorists and bandits were business defying Nigeria's sovereignty and territorial integrity? ECOWAS and AU are always and only quick in condemning issues like this and military coup in Africa, but failed to profers concrete solutions to problem of bad governance, corruption and terrorism tormenting and giving nightmare to member states.
It is against this backdrop re‑thinking the principle and practice of sovereignty in Nigeria's context becomes germane. If we accept that sovereignty can be conditional or provisional as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau argued—that the phenomenon entails the duty to protect citizens—then external assistance or intervention for good and well-being of the citizens ceases to be a violation and becomes a partnership. After all, the State (government) and the citizens ( the governed or electorates- with whom lies the true sovereignty) are into contract, which each party as a matter of constitutional responsibility must live up to the expectation.This is just like marriage, and in most marriages what causes divorce is unfaithfulness and inability of a partner to live up to the expectations of the other embodied in marital agreement and vow. Though assiduously trying, Nigerian government is drowning in the pool of insecurity and failing to live up to its primary responsibility of securing the lives of the citizens. What ordinary Nigerians want is end to insecurity and no more or less. The fact that US coming is not for perpetual occupation , majority of the citizens welcomes it with glee. However, the assistance also should include capacity‑building as it's package . This would enables Nigeria’s security agencies to reclaim monopoly over the use of force.
From the forgoing, the following may serves as tips on practical steps which include but by no means limited to:
i.Intelligence sharing with trusted partners (U.S., EU, China) while respecting Nigerian agency;
ii.Training and equipment for Nigerian troops to combat Boko Haram, ISWAP, banditry, and farmer‑herder conflicts; and
iii.Economic assistance tied to anti‑corruption reforms, ensuring that loans are not end up converting Nigeria to perpetual milked cow by external powers.
In conclusion, the controversy sparked by Donald Trump’s “guns‑a‑blazing” warning forces Nigeria—and the wider international community—to grapple with a fundamental question: Can a state that cannot protect its people still claim absolute sovereignty?Thus, this piece compellingly argues that the answer lies in redefining sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a blanket right for all eternity. The recent experience in Madagascar, ongoing post election rising in Cameroun, post election protest in Tanzania ( the famous home of the legendary Julius Nyerere), and the previous cases in Niger , Bukani Faso, Mali leading to undemocratic ceasure of power show the dynamics and fluidity of political sovereignty. These are not and shouldn't be model to Nigeria. Should the recently alleged aborted coup succeed in Nigeria, the country would join list. The government therefore, and the president should exercise his political will to bring to an end terrorism, banditry and the general insecurity in land.Understood, Nigeria is a complex nation with alot of vested interest and more so, that the problem of insecurity has lasted for over a decade, but it can be done.
Bandits and terrorists certainly do not respect Nigeria’s borders; they thrive on the state’s inability to enforce them. When domestic security forces are stretched thin, asking for external help is not a betrayal of sovereignty—it is an attempt to restore it. The challenge now is to translate that pragmatic understanding into a coherent policy that respects international law, acknowledges geopolitical realities, and, most importantly, puts the safety of Nigerian citizens front and centre.
In short, the debate over Trump’s threat is a crucial catalyst for a much‑needed reconceptualisation of what it means for Nigeria and others grappling with similar challenges to be a sovereign nation that worth the name in the 21st century and beyond. Dr.Godwin Onuh Odeh, Department of History and International Studies, Sokoto State University, Sokoto Nigeria.
No comments