By Jeff Godwin Doki
In November 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC). This was not the first time: he made the same designation in December 2020, only for his successor, Joe Biden, to delist Nigeria in 2021. The implication is clear, within five years, Nigeria has been classified twice by the same U.S. President as a CPC. As the proverb goes, there is no smoke without fire. However, it was Trump’s recent threat to invade Nigeria over alleged genocide and mass atrocities against Christians that raised diplomatic alarm and sharply divided commentators and intellectuals into two opposing camps.
On one side are those who view Trump’s position as an extension of economic imperialism, arguing that the United States seeks to manufacture a crisis to justify exploiting Nigeria’s mineral resources. On the other side are voices insisting that Nigeria is either unable or unwilling to confront insecurity, making external intervention necessary under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. As with most controversies, there are three sides: your view, my view, and the truth. Which one reflects reality?
It must be acknowledged that many of the serious and persistent threats to global stability today arise not from conflicts between major powers but from deep internal divisions—ethnic, racial, linguistic, caste-based, or class-based. These conflicts are especially prevalent in Africa, a continent that appeared to lose its geopolitical relevance after the Cold War. Countries that once relied heavily on superpower support, such as Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Zaire, Somalia, and Liberia, have since descended into violent turmoil. Beyond Africa, similar patterns appear in the Middle East, South Asia, and the Pacific. These conflicts are fuelled by poverty, bad governance, widening social inequalities, and corrupt or weak leadership. Issues of self-determination, ethnic and religious identity, competition over resources, private armies, and the influence of warlords all deepen these crises. Ultimately, today’s global conflicts are predominantly intrastate in nature, and they have reshaped international norms around sovereignty, intervention, good governance, and citizen protection.
Although most modern conflicts occur within states, many intrastate crises threaten international peace and security. Resolving them is therefore essential to global stability. Traditional international law grants states exclusive authority over their territories and the right to non-interference, as enshrined in the UN Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force in international relations, except under two circumstances: the inherent right to self-defense (Article 51) and actions authorized by the UN Security Council.
Crucially, international law assumes that states exist primarily to safeguard the security of their citizens. State security is important because it forms the foundation for individual security. Yet, in many cases, Nigeria included, states fail in this responsibility. Today, threats to citizens’ safety increasingly come from their own governments rather than external enemies. Some states perpetrate genocide and mass atrocities; others lack the capacity to protect their people from violent groups.
Understanding the state through the lens of responsibility and security helps clarify the role of the international community in preventing human suffering. This is where the U.S. threat to intervene in Nigeria becomes relevant. The logic behind Trump’s position is rooted in the belief that external actors have both a right and a duty to prevent genocide and mass atrocities when a state fails to do so. Trump’s argument reduces sovereignty to an instrumental value, one earned through the ability to protect citizens. When a state like Nigeria fails in this duty, it forfeits its claim to non-interference. In effect, humanitarian intervention becomes justifiable, because mass human suffering is a legitimate concern of the international community.
Since the 1950s, the UN has developed peacekeeping operations to help states maintain order. But it was the humanitarian disasters of the 1990s that strengthened support for intervention in extreme cases. In modern international law, sovereignty now implies responsibility. Sudanese diplomat Francis Deng articulated this clearly in Sovereignty as Responsibility (1996), arguing that sovereignty carries obligations for which states must be accountable, not just to their own citizens, but to the international community. From this perspective, Trump’s threat to intervene to stop genocide in Nigeria appears justified, though critics warn that such moral posturing may conceal the deeper dynamics of global economic dependency.
READ ALSO: Abati Calls for Shift in Nigeria’s US Genocide Diplomacy
This leads us to an important question: How responsible is the Nigerian government? To any objective observer, Nigeria projects a façade of normalcy. Its supposed “war against terrorism” lacks credibility. The recent reshuffling of Service Chiefs is cosmetic at best. Meanwhile, from Riyom and Bokkos in Plateau State to Yelewata in Benue and through Zamfara and Kebbi, citizens bury their loved ones almost daily due to preventable acts of terrorism. Yet, politicians continue parading on blood-red carpets at rallies, obsessed not with governance but with securing victory in the 2027 elections.
The political class is preoccupied with forming alliances to plunder the national treasury. The government shows disdain for intellectuals and contributes to the systematic disempowerment of the youth. It fails to recognize children as the world’s most valuable resource and the nation’s best hope. Universities and hospitals are neglected, shut down for weeks or months, even as the government announces multi-trillion-naira projects like coastal highways. Clearly, Nigeria’s leadership has lost touch with the true meaning of sovereignty and responsibility.
It is now left for Donald Trump, the U.S. President, to understand that the Nigerian crisis is fundamentally about human security. Both Christians and Muslims have become pawns in the hands of terrorists and bandits, and the Nigerian state continues to fail in its most basic duty: protecting its people.
Jeff Doki, an expert in Peace and Conflict Studies, is a Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Jos (UNIJOS), Nigeria.