By Asuku S. Audu
We definitely have serious security challenges in Nigeria, but describing the violence as a “genocide against Christians” isn’t accurate. While attacks on Christian communities do occur, the crisis is a complex mix of farmer‑herder clashes, banditry, and extremist insurgencies that affect both Muslims and Christians across the country. Local analysts and officials stress that the situation is multilayered and does not fit the legal definition of genocide, even as they acknowledge the tragic loss of life on all sides.
The United States’ recent posture toward Nigeria has been dominated by President Trump’s declaration that Nigeria be listed as a “Country of Particular Concern” and his warning that the U.S. might launch “fast” military action if the killings of Christians continue. Instead of escalating tension, a more constructive approach would have been for Washington to extend a hand of cooperation to President Bola Tinubu’s administration. By sharing intelligence, providing logistical support, and helping to strengthen the capacity of the Nigerian armed forces—who have already pledged to intensify operations against Boko Haram and ISWAP ³—the U.S. could address the root of the insecurity without resorting to threats that risk inflaming religious sensitivities.
A collaborative stance would also acknowledge the complexity of the crisis: banditry, farmer‑herder clashes, and extremist insurgencies affect both Christians and Muslims across the country. Nigerian officials have repeatedly stressed that the problem is multifaceted and not a simple case of religious persecution. Offering technical assistance and capacity‑building, while respecting Nigeria’s sovereignty, would likely yield more lasting results than a “guns‑a‑blazing” ultimatum.
Alh Asuku S. Audu