The question is not whether Nigeria should cooperate with partners, but how such cooperation is governed, limited, and aligned with our strategic interests. Security partnerships must strengthen sovereignty and remain accountable to the citizens in whose name they operate.
As I stated in a recent Al Jazeera interview, the United States airstrike in Sokoto was conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities, under established AFRICOM channels. But coordination alone is not the real story. The more important question is what kind of cooperation this represents, and under what conditions it remains legitimate.
|
|
Not long ago, Nigeria was designated a “Country of Particular Concern” by the Trump administration, with rhetoric that reduced a complex security landscape to a narrow religious frame. The language of threat reflected a breakdown of diplomatic trust. This signified pressure, not partnership.
What has changed is not merely tone, but structure and leadership.
|
|
|
|---|
Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria has reasserted the primacy of diplomacy, institutional process, and sovereign consent. This operation followed sustained intelligence exchanges, command-level coordination, and agreed rules of engagement that respected Nigeria’s constitutional authority. It was defined, time-bound cooperation in which Nigeria retained decision-making control. That distinction is critical.
For Nigeria, the significance lies in maintaining strategic autonomy while confronting asymmetric threats across borders and ungoverned spaces. External cooperation strengthens national capacity only when bound by clear oversight, transparent objectives, and accountability to Nigerian institutions.
For the United States, this cooperation offers more than tactical success. It reflects an understanding that counterterrorism efforts detached from local ownership often fail operationally and politically. Acting with Nigeria, rather than over Nigeria, preserves diplomatic credibility where perceptions of external intervention carry lasting consequences.
Yet, this moment should not be overstated. Coordination does not resolve tensions surrounding AFRICOM’s role, nor eliminate public skepticism. Cooperation must remain exceptional, clearly justified, and subject to continuous political review.
This episode suggests a cautious recalibration in Nigeria–US relations, anchored in institutions and process. But trust must be sustained through consistency, restraint, and respect for Nigeria’s regional responsibilities.
The question is not whether Nigeria should cooperate with partners, but how such cooperation is governed, limited, and aligned with our strategic interests. Security partnerships must strengthen sovereignty and remain accountable to the citizens in whose name they operate.
Under what conditions should external military cooperation be deemed necessary, and at what point does it undermine the stability it seeks to protect?
Ademola Oshodi is Senior Special Assistant to the President on Foreign Affairs and Protocol.
