What does America want from Nigeria?, By Simbo Olorunfemi

While for the American politicians, this might just be about pandering to the White Evangelical base, with an eye on domestic politics, the mischaracterisation of the crisis and threat of military action poses a serious threat and grave consequences not only for Nigeria, but a chaotic region, faced with what Nigerian Foreign Affairs Minister, Yusuf Tuggar described as “an interlocking suite of occurrences have made our neighbourhood less secure.”

Sometime in 2004, reports emerged of plans by the US Navy to deploy an aircraft carrier to the waters off Nigeria and neighbouring countries in the strategic Gulf of Guinea. It was deemed an “unusual exercise”, even as it came on the back of talks by senior US commanders in Europe, before then, on the need to focus more attention on Africa, with particular concern about emerging threats of terror in what was tagged “ungoverned areas” in the region.

The response from the Nigerian authorities was one of disconnect with the strategic implications of the development, or at best, a tepid dismissal of what it portended. The Minister of Information was quoted to have said: “If they want to deploy a military vessel, it is their own business because the Gulf of Guinea is a very vast area.”

The thinking of a senior naval Officer, cited by CC Nwoke, was that as long as this was not taking place in Nigeria’s territorial waters, “they have a right to deploy their troops as they deem fit.” One would not know if there was a thoughtful consideration of the fact that while the exercise was indeed scheduled for outside Nigeria’s territorial sea, that it was still a borderline contiguous zone exercise, primarily taking place about 20 to 30 nautical miles southwest of Lagos, Nigeria’s baseline, and well within the Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 nautical miles), where even though there is freedom of navigation for foreign military vessels, they may be monitored or restricted if suspected of violation of some laws. It is unclear how that exercise eventually transitioned into a joint one or as a multinational maritime security exercise led by the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), with Nigeria as the key regional partner in 2010.

In September, a US Navy’s amphibious ship carrying over 200 to 300 sailors and US Coast Guard personnel was slated for a six-month deployment to the Gulf of Guinea region, and tasked with forming training teams to collaborate with eleven Gulf of Guinea nations, including Nigeria, as well as European partners such as France and Portugal.

This establishes the point that Nigeria has long been of particular concern to the US. As Professor Bolaji Akinyemi pointed out in 2004, the Americans are excellent when it comes to strategic thinking: “…what they will need in 15 years time, they will be looking for…now…” That might explain the decision by President George W Bush to establish the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007, which generated hostile reaction from African countries under the leadership of Nigeria, which took the charge of nudging other African states against accepting to host the AFRICOM headquarters, leading to it being moved to Stuttgart, Germany, which was already serving as the headquarters of the European Command.

In an ironic twist, as terrorism took a foothold in Africa, the same countries that had resisted the location of AFRICOM headquarters on the continent began to call for its relocation from Germany. In a virtual meeting with the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2021, President Buhari told him, “Considering the growing security challenges in West and Central Africa, Gulf of Guinea, Lake Chad region and the Sahel, weighing heavily on Africa, it underscores the need for the United States to consider re-locating AFRICOM headquarters… near the theatre of operation.”

However, American interest in Nigeria did not begin this century; the two countries have had a long and complex dance of diplomacy, cooperation, and contestation over the decades, shaped by history, evolving geopolitical realities, and the interplay of national interests. There was a natural inclination on the part of the newly independent Nigeria to be keen on asserting its sovereign identity towards the United States, seen as a model of democracy, economic development, and modernity.

It is instructive that China, the EU, and ECOWAS have all spoken out. China expressed support for Nigeria, which it described as its ‘comprehensive strategic partner’, as it “leads its people on the development path suited to its national conditions.” Mao Ning, spokesperson of China’s foreign ministry, says China “opposes any country using religion and human rights as an excuse to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, and threatening other countries with sanctions and force.”

Beyond the American interest in Nigeria as a strategic counterbalance to Soviet influence in Africa, mutual interests around economic engagement, especially in the bourgeoning oil sector, began to become evident, with American corporations making their way in. The influence of America also showed in some of the changes Nigeria made in economic and infrastructural systems, including shifts in orientation from the British-style right-hand drive (driving on the left side of the road) to the left-hand drive (driving on the right side), which is American. A mix of cultural diplomacy tools, such as movies, music, cultural and educational exchanges, helped in fostering Americanism and people-to-people connections.

There were tensions during the civil war, with the seemingly ambiguous posturing of the Americans. But that paled in significance to the diplomatic estrangement that erupted in the second half of the 1970s during the Murtala-Obasanjo administration.

After General Murtala Mohammed came to power in 1975, Nigeria intensified its diplomatic efforts to rally African states to support the Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola (MPLA), which led to the formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and most African nations recognising the MPLA government, which Nigeria saw as the legitimate Angolan government fighting for genuine liberation from colonial and white minority rule, in consonance with its anti-apartheid stance and commitment to African sovereignty.

With the MPLA backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, the Ford administration in the US supported anti-MPLA groups, particularly the União Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) and the Frente Nacional de Libertação de Angola (FNLA), aligning with its Cold War containment policy against Soviet influence in Africa.

Nigeria provided military and economic assistance to the MPLA, including weapons and the use of Nigerian military aircraft, which didn’t sit well with the Americans, who had mounted pressure on Nigeria. In January 1976, President Gerald Ford sent a letter to General Murtala Mohammed, urging Nigeria to persuade the MPLA to request the withdrawal of Soviet and Cuban forces from Angola; a request that was strongly rebuffed by Nigeria.

The relationship between the countries, however, strengthened over the years, especially post-1999, even with occasional hiccups around what was seen as Nigeria’s shortcomings in the areas of governance and human rights. The Leahy law, which was enacted by the US Congress in 1996 and first applied to Nigeria during the military regime of General Sani Abacha, became more prominent during the administrations of Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan, and Muhammadu Buhari. It was used as an excuse for restrictions on arms sales and assistance from the US, even as Nigeria faced increasing security challenges related to insurgency and counter-terrorism. In 2014, the US blocked the sale of American-made attack helicopters to Nigeria, citing the Leahy Law. Though there were instances where the restrictions have been relaxed a few times, the embargo remains in place, even when officials acknowledge that the law complicates military cooperation, thereby making efforts by Nigeria to successfully push back terrorists and criminals that have wreaked havoc across the land very difficult.

It is against this backdrop that the mischaracterisation of the situation in Nigeria by President Donald Trump and his follow-up threat to go into the country ‘guns-a-blazing’ is best situated. While on the surface, the escalation of the issue was triggered by a news report he saw on TV, that has come on the back of the orchestrated campaign for months by some American legislators recruited by lobbyists working for some anti-Nigeria interest group, for Nigeria to be re-listed as a “country of particular concern,” in their belief that it would help them actualise their heinous agenda of destabilising Nigeria and/or effecting a regime change. While for the American politicians, this might just be about pandering to the White Evangelical base, with an eye on domestic politics, the mischaracterisation of the crisis and threat of military action poses a serious threat and grave consequences not only for Nigeria, but a chaotic region, faced with what Nigerian Foreign Affairs Minister, Yusuf Tuggar described as “an interlocking suite of occurrences have made our neighbourhood less secure.”

As unprecedented and complex as the issues are, they also offer an opportunity. The spotlight on Nigeria can be put to good use in rallying support to deal decisively with the terrorists and criminal elements behind the devastating actions that have led to the death of thousands of Nigerians and the displacement of millions of people. As previously canvassed, the appointment and posting of ambassadors has never been more urgent.

With a cocktail of challenges triggered by the implosion of Libya, failure of the EU Sahel Strategy, terrorism and criminal gangs, effects of climate change, and population explosion, America inserting itself into a complex and multidimensional pushback against terrorists, bandits, and other criminal elements terrorising the region is unlikely to be helpful. “To bring the weight of the United States solely on the Christian side and to frame things in a Muslim-Christian dimension is probably extremely unhelpful to both Christians and Muslims in Nigeria,” Darren Kerr, dean of the School of Peace Studies at the University of California, said to NBC News. Trump’s comments threaten to potentially ‘light a match’ in an already fragile landscape, he said.

It is instructive that China, the EU, and ECOWAS have all spoken out. China expressed support for Nigeria, which it described as its ‘comprehensive strategic partner’, as it “leads its people on the development path suited to its national conditions.” Mao Ning, spokesperson of China’s foreign ministry, says China “opposes any country using religion and human rights as an excuse to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, and threatening other countries with sanctions and force.”

That is in tandem with Nigeria’s foreign policy direction under the Tinubu administration, which Foreign Affairs Minister, Yusuf Tuggar, has framed around the Doctrine of Strategic Autonomy. “We have the right and the basis to engage with as many countries as possible to trade, and our relationships are not based on ideological considerations; they’re based on interests, beginning with our national interests,” he says.

That posture, some speculate, might be a cause of concern for the Americans. The designation of Nigeria as a country of particular concern, while it might be about pandering to the base, the threat of military action, they argue, is only a leaf from Trump’s art of the deal. Few expect him to follow through with it.

But not many will take a bet on that, given how predictably unpredictable President Trump is. Diplomacy in the age of Trump is a different ballgame. It plays out in real-time on social media platforms, with the undiplomatic and unconventional being the norm for the American president, who often takes cues from TV commentary rather than policy notes and briefs. Being so reliant on information from social media also makes him susceptible to questionable claims and conspiracy theories. Successfully engaging with him does require an understanding of unconventional tools of engagement unlikely to be found in the traditional diplomacy toolkit, which explains the tactful approach that has been adopted by Nigeria’s foreign affairs officials, which has defused the tension at this end.

As unprecedented and complex as the issues are, they also offer an opportunity. The spotlight on Nigeria can be put to good use in rallying support to deal decisively with the terrorists and criminal elements behind the devastating actions that have led to the death of thousands of Nigerians and the displacement of millions of people. As previously canvassed, the appointment and posting of ambassadors has never been more urgent. Nigeria must continue to maintain its calmness and composure, while upping the ante with respect to strategic engagement through official and back channels.

Whatever the true interest of America is, through strategic engagement, this can be negotiated and resolved to the mutual benefit of both parties. While the context in which Peter Egom wrote in 2007 is different, his point is still valid that: “America does not have to come to Africa to defend her interests. America needs to have willing partners, cooperative partners, to defend American interests in Africa.” Nigeria must find a way to make the Americans embrace that understanding.

Simbo Olorunfemi is a specialist on Nigeria’s foreign policy, a communications consultant, and managing editor of Africa Enterprise, Email: [email protected]