- Presidential Spokesperson Says Assistance Welcome 'As Long As It Recognises Our Territorial Integrity'
Nigeria's government is walking a diplomatic tightrope after President Donald Trump threatened military action over what he claimed is Christian persecution in the West African nation.
On Sunday, presidential spokesperson Daniel Bwala told newsmen that Nigeria would "welcome US assistance as long as it recognises our territorial integrity." It's the kind of carefully worded response that says yes to cooperation while drawing a firm line against violation of sovereignty.
"I am sure by the time these two leaders meet and sit, there would be better outcomes in our joint resolve to fight terrorism," Bwala added, attempting to shift conversation from Trump's inflammatory threats toward productive bilateral engagement.
The statement came a day after Trump posted on social media that he'd ordered the Pentagon to prepare for possible "fast" military action if Nigeria fails to crack down on what he called "the killing of Christians."
Trump's post was characteristically aggressive. He threatened to immediately cut off all US assistance to Nigeria and warned the US
"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."
For Nigeria's government, responding to that kind of rhetoric without either appearing weak or unnecessarily escalating tensions requires diplomatic skill. Bwala's statement attempts exactly that balance—acknowledging shared counterterrorism interests while insisting on respect for Nigerian sovereignty.
President Bola Tinubu had already pushed back Saturday against Trump's characterization of Nigeria as religiously intolerant. His statement defended the country's record on religious freedom and challenged the narrative driving Trump's threats.
"Since 2023, our administration has maintained an open and active engagement with Christian and Muslim leaders alike and continues to address security challenges which affect citizens across faiths and regions," Tinubu said.
He added that "the characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians."
That response highlights a fundamental disconnect between Trump's claims and the reality experts describe. Nigeria certainly faces serious security challenges from armed groups. But framing those challenges as Christian genocide or religious persecution oversimplifies a complex situation and potentially worsens it.
Multiple analysts told The Gazette News that claims of Christian genocide in Nigeria are false and dangerous.
"All the data reveals is that there is no Christian genocide going on in Nigeria," said Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian humanitarian lawyer and conflict analyst. He described the narrative as "a dangerous far-right narrative that has been simmering for a long time that President Trump is amplifying today."
Bukarti explained that armed groups in Nigeria don't discriminate based on religion when they attack. "They bomb markets. They bomb churches. They bomb mosques, and they attack every civilian location they find. They do not discriminate between Muslims and Christians."
That assessment matches what security analysts have documented. Boko Haram and other armed groups operating in northeastern Nigeria have killed tens of thousands of people—both Muslims and Christians. In fact, because most attacks occur in Nigeria's Muslim-majority north, Muslims constitute the majority of victims.
The conflict has religious dimensions. Boko Haram seeks to impose its radical interpretation of Islamic law. But the group also targets Muslims it considers insufficiently devout. And other violence in Nigeria—farmer-herder conflicts, communal clashes, banditry, secessionist movements—has varied motivations that don't fit simplistic religious persecution narratives.
Trump's threats didn't emerge from vacuum. US Senator Ted Cruz recently urged Congress to designate Nigeria as a violator of religious freedom with claims of "Christian mass murder."
That pressure reflects activism by some American Christian organizations that have portrayed violence in Nigeria through an exclusively religious lens. Their advocacy emphasizes Christian victims while downplaying or ignoring Muslim casualties and the complex mix of factors driving different conflicts.
Nigeria was actually placed on the US list of countries of particular concern for religious freedom violations in 2020 under Trump's first term. That designation, which didn't single out attacks on Christians specifically, was lifted in 2023—reportedly to improve bilateral relations ahead of then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken's visit.
Trump's threats to reimpose that designation and go further with military action represent significant escalation. They also reflect his administration's willingness to use inflammatory rhetoric and threaten unilateral military intervention in ways that violate international norms.
Bwala's emphasis that assistance must "recognise our territorial integrity" addresses the core issue Trump's threats raise. Nigeria is a sovereign nation. The US doesn't have authority to conduct military operations on Nigerian soil without Nigerian consent.
International law is clear on this. Military intervention in another country's territory without authorization from that country or UN Security Council approval violates the UN Charter. Trump's "guns-a-blazing" threat describes exactly the kind of intervention international law prohibits.
Nigeria's response—we'll accept assistance but you must respect our sovereignty—attempts to redirect Trump's aggressive posture toward legitimate security cooperation. The two countries already collaborate on counterterrorism. The US provides training, intelligence sharing, and equipment to Nigerian security forces.
What Nigeria won't accept, and what international law doesn't permit, is unilateral US military action on Nigerian territory without Nigerian government consent and control.
Ebenezer Obadare, senior fellow for Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, agreed Nigeria faces real security challenges but said Trump's approach is counterproductive.
"This is precisely the moment when Nigeria needs assistance, especially military assistance," Obadare said. "The wrong thing to do is to invade Nigeria and override the authorities or the authority of the Nigerian government. Doing that will be counterproductive."
That assessment captures the paradox of Trump's threats. Nigeria does need support addressing armed groups. But military intervention that violates sovereignty and treats Nigeria as unable to govern itself would undermine the very cooperation needed for effective counterterrorism.
Obadare described armed groups as Nigeria and America's "common enemy." That framing suggests productive approach—partnership against shared threats rather than one country imposing its will on another.
Trump's threats also risk exacerbating religious tensions within Nigeria. The country's population of over 200 million is split roughly equally between Muslims and Christians, with Muslims concentrated in the north and Christians predominant in the south.
Bukarti warned that Trump's narrative is "divisive, and it is only going to further increase instability in Nigeria." When external actors frame Nigeria's security challenges as Christian persecution by Muslims or government, it inflames religious tensions that could trigger additional violence.
Nigeria's religious communities generally coexist peacefully. Religious leaders from both faiths collaborate on peacebuilding. Interfaith marriage is common in many areas. Yes, religious tensions exist and sometimes violent conflict has religious dimensions. But the default isn't religious warfare—it's coexistence.
External narratives that paint Nigeria as engaged in Christian genocide risk becoming self-fulfilling prophecies by convincing people that religious war is inevitable or already happening.
Trump's threat to "immediately cut off all assistance" if Nigeria doesn't meet his demands raises practical questions. What specific US assistance would be cut? What benchmarks would Trump use to determine whether Nigeria is sufficiently "cracking down"? What timeline is he imposing?
Those details matter because without them, the threat is arbitrary. Nigeria can't comply with demands that aren't clearly defined. And cutting assistance—particularly security assistance meant to help Nigeria fight armed groups—would be counterproductive if the goal is reducing violence.
The threat also raises questions about congressional authority. While presidents have significant discretion over foreign assistance, Congress appropriates funds and sets conditions. Trump can't simply eliminate congressionally authorized assistance by tweet.
Nigeria's Sunday response attempts to defuse immediate tensions while keeping communication channels open. By expressing willingness to accept assistance and confidence that direct dialogue between the two presidents would produce "better outcomes," Bwala offers Trump an off-ramp from his threats.
Whether Trump takes that off-ramp remains uncertain. His social media threats could be opening negotiating positions meant to pressure Nigeria. They could be domestic political messaging aimed at his evangelical Christian base. Or they could be serious statements of intent.
For Nigeria, the challenge is responding in ways that protect sovereignty and national dignity while avoiding unnecessary confrontation with a powerful ally. Sunday's statement threads that needle—neither accepting Trump's characterization of Nigeria nor rejecting cooperation entirely.
What Nigeria won't do, and what international law doesn't permit, is accept US military intervention on its territory without its consent. Bwala's emphasis on territorial integrity makes that boundary clear.
Trump threatened to go into Nigeria "guns-a-blazing." Nigeria's response: come in partnership or don't come at all. We'll fight terrorism together as equals, or we'll fight it ourselves. But we won't surrender sovereignty to anyone.
That's the message in Bwala's carefully diplomatic language. Whether Washington hears it remains to be seen.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!