Trump’s Military Action: Genocide, Hypocrisy, and Blood on Nigeria’s Soil

Trump’s Military Action: Genocide, Hypocrisy, and Blood on Nigeria’s Soil

By: Dr. James Bwala

President Donald Trump has doubled down on military actions following ongoing violence and conflict in Nigeria, particularly in regions like Plateau, Kaduna, and Benue, which have drawn the attention of various groups, including religious communities. The argument put forth by many who identify as Christians in Nigeria centers around whether the killings they face can be classified as genocide. The actions of these bandits, terrorists, or Fulani militia and the silence of some Nigerians irrespective of their position in leadership or the poor affirmatively revealed that these actions warrant such a label. Examining the roles of different organizations, particularly Muslim scholars, leaders, and groups like the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), which is now calling for the sack of INEC Chairman, Professor Josh Amupitan; the Jama’atul Nasrul’la, which is almost nonexistent; as well as the broader implications of American military presence or presence in Nigeria calls for redoubling down indeed. 

I believe that it is critical to define what constitutes genocide according to international law. The United Nations defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This includes killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Given the systematic targeting of Christians in areas such as Plateau, Benue, Kaduna, and other places, one could argue that these attacks meet the criteria for genocide. 

READ ALSO:https://newsng.ng/harassment-of-muslim-women-in-maiduguri-hospitals-an-assertion-amidst-an-alarming-increase-in-terrorist-activities-in-nigerias-northeastern-region/

Reports from various human rights organizations indicate a pattern of violence against Christians that suggests an organized effort to eliminate their presence in certain regions. These are facts facing us, which we cannot deny. The use of terror tactics, mass killings, and displacement aligns with the characteristics of genocide as outlined by the UN. Indeed, the persistent nature of these attacks over time raises questions about the intentions behind them, reinforcing the argument that Christians in Nigeria have a legitimate claim to label these acts as genocide.

The argument for calling these acts genocide is not solely based on the statistics of violence but also on the response—or lack thereof—from other religious groups. For example, while groups like MURIC have vocally addressed issues impacting Muslims, particularly in relation to the hijab controversy and recently the case of harassment of female Muslims regarding routine checks before entry into some hospitals in Maiduguri for security purposes, there has been a conspicuous silence regarding the atrocities of banditry and other terrorist groups committed against Muslims by these same organizations. This silence in response to Muslim killings invites skepticism regarding the motivations and priorities of these organizations. It raises the question: why do Muslim scholars or groups remain silent when Muslims are victimized by bandits, Fulani militia, and Boko Haram but are quick to respond to grievances on other grounds without looking at the weighty things? This inconsistency is indicative of a deeper hypocrisy, suggesting that these groups may be selective in their advocacy based on who is affected, even if Muslim, rather than the universal principle of fighting against injustice for all classes of Muslims.

It is rather essential to understand the sociopolitical context in which these killings occur. Nigeria is characterized by a complex tapestry of ethnic and religious identities, with tensions frequently surfacing between the predominantly Muslim North and the predominantly Christian South. This divide has been exacerbated by economic hardship, political corruption, and increasing competition for resources. In this volatile environment, the actions of armed groups—often labeled as “bandits” or “Fulani militias”—have plunged the nation into chaos, with significant consequences for interreligious relations. The failure of organizations like MURIC and others to condemn violence perpetrated by bandits and terrorists, even against Muslims, or to address this violence by terrorists against the Muslims also calls for questioning regarding what Professor Akintola and his MURIC stand for. Such stands indeed raise troubling questions about the Islamic wing’s and Christian groups’ genuine commitment to justice and community welfare and, indeed, the concerns for Muslims, as Professor Akintola has shown, or which he claimed to be standing on, revealed he is only standing on his own political and business gains and not for any Muslims being victimized daily by bandits. 

The passivity exhibited by some Muslim leaders in denouncing violence within their ranks signals complicity or at least a reluctance to hold their community accountable when it comes to dealing with evil because killing, especially of innocent people, as carried out by these bandits, is the greatest evil against mankind. Such a stance does not foster an inclusive approach to resolving grievances. Instead, it entrenches divisions and fuels cycles of doubt. This, in turn, undermines efforts toward national healing and reconciliation. Without collective action against all forms of terrorism, Nigeria will continue to face escalated violence, making it increasingly challenging to address the root causes of these evils going on and perpetrated by enemies of peace, or whatever names we call them. The results we are getting now with our armed forces rising to the occasion areindicative of the capability of our soldiers to deal with the situations given the support. 

READ ALSO: https://ebonyheraldnewsonline.com.ng/the-kidnapped-kebbi-deputy-speaker-breath-air-of-freedom-by-jamil-gulma-kebbi/

What we are struggling with now, the fear that the American military boots may be seen on our soil, is the case of invoking the UN RnP. The shame of not being able to clean up our mess is that someone else is coming to clean it up for us. That is the ‘disgrace’ Trump allegedly said about us. Indeed, the role of external actors—most notably the presence of American military forces—has stirred debate about intervention strategies in Nigeria. The arrival of American soldiers, if they come, serves both as a sign of hope and as a contentious issue. For many Nigerians, particularly those suffering under the weight of banditry and terrorism, the presence of foreign military personnel signals a potential turning point in the fight against armed groups. There is an expectation that U.S. forces can aid in dismantling the networks of violence and restoring a semblance of peace.

However, this brings up important ethical considerations. Interventions are often fraught with the risk of achieving unintended consequences. If not approached delicately, increased militarization might further exacerbate existing tensions between religious groups, especially if perceptions emerge that foreign troops are intervening in a manner that favors one group over the other. Therefore, the intervention must be accompanied by dialogues aimed at building bridges between communities and addressing historical grievances. Failure to consider the local nuances could lead to a wider rift, countering the very objectives of stabilizing the regions.

The engagement of international communities—including Western nations—is imperative in helping stabilize Nigeria but should be carefully measured. The focus should remain on humanitarian aid, support for local peace-building efforts, and facilitating interfaith dialogues. While military action can neutralize immediate threats, long-term solutions require cooperation among diverse groups within Nigeria and sustained dialogue about shared grievances and aspirations.

READ ALSO:https://newsng.ng/asuu-like-pengasan-and-the-unending-trauma-of-the-nigerian-federal-university-students/

The situation faced by Christians in Plateau, Kaduna, and Benue does qualify as genocide under international definitions, highlighting an alarming trend of targeted violence against religious minorities. The silence of groups such as MURIC illustrates a troubling hypocrisy that suggests selective outrage confined to ethnoreligious identity.  While the presence of American military forces may offer hope for mitigating the influence of violent extremist groups, it must be accompanied by comprehensive strategies that recognize the complex socio-political landscape of Nigeria. Ultimately, genuine reconciliation will require the collaboration of all parties involved—Christians, Muslims, and international actors—to forge a path towards an inclusive and peaceful society that respects the rights of every individual, irrespective of their faith.

* James Bwala, PhD, a security strategy analyst, writes from Abuja.

Trump’s Military Action: Genocide, Hypocrisy, and Blood on Nigeria’s Soil