Sino-US ties, drama on Nigerian playground

It would never have been thought that Nigeria, with all her endowments in human and mineral resources, would be a playground for especially two world powers – the United States of America and China – both of who view each other with a suspicion that is far beyond the love and working diplomatic relationship they proclaim in public, in the 21st century.

But when reports revealed on November 6 that the US military had submitted contingency plans for potential strikes on Nigeria, following a directive from President Donald Trump on November 2 to “prepare for possible action” over a claim of Christian genocide, whatever doubts on Nigeria being a playground would have disappeared.

According to New York Times, the US Africa Command had drawn up and sent its options to the Department of War, sequel to the request of Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the plan from the African Command included heavy, medium and light options, each of which would be designed to allow for a controlled escalation.

Amid growing concern, the US said the planned action was to protect Nigerian christians from armed violence and to end the lingering insurgency in the country, after designating Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) and suspending arms sales and technical support for the country.

“We stand ready, willing and able to save our Great Christian Population around the World,” Trump had said, apparently for effect.

By November 4, only 48 hours after Trump issued the strike threat on Nigeria, China reacted in a manner that did not disguise a pursuit of interest but wrapped in sincere concern for humanity, saying it was “firmly opposed to any external interference in Nigeria’s internal affairs”.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, said: “As a comprehensive strategic partner of Nigeria, China firmly supports the Nigerian government in leading its people on a development path that fits Nigeria’s national realities. We oppose any country’s interference in other countries’ internal affairs under the pretext of religion and human rights. We oppose the wanton threat of sanctions and the use of force.”

The non-initiated in Nigeria in their legion have bought both sides of this “love expressions” for their country. Not a surprise, however, in a place where partisan politics has combined with deliberate ignorance and gullibility to produce a dreadful anti-sanity outcome over the last ten years.

“Let America come and cleanse our country for good,” one side is saying. “No matter America’s show of might, China will be there to defend us,” another side is also saying. “If you choose to read Trump’s statement with an open mind, you will simply hear the voice of a visitor who cares about you,” yet another side is saying.

This lot would still need to know, but only if they would believe that the most important bilateral relationship in the world today is the one between the United States and China. No doubt, it has been a complex relationship that sometimes leads to tensions.

But this has not barred both countries from having very significant economic ties that result in interconnectivity which sustains their long-strategic competition on the global stage. At the moment. The US and China are respectively the world’s largest and second largest economies by nominal GDP, collectively accounting for over 40 per cent of the global nominal GDP.

It is credit to both countries, however, that while China was a virtual village at the time of the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 that was organised by the first German chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, to draw a plan for the scramble for and partition of Africa, the United States had attended but ended up among the seven countries that left Berlin empty-handed – the remaining six country being Austria-Hungary, Russia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden-Norway and the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, if both the United States and China are turning Nigeria to a playground where their strength can be tested, it says a lot to how Nigeria itself has failed to evolve.

All the foregoing should have provided President Bola Tinubu an ample opportunity to demonstrate his resolve to rub in Nigeria’s sovereignty on Trump.

But, instead, he appeared to panic under pressure as he summoned his cabinet to an extraordinary urgent meeting on November 6 – to begin to say all over what he had said during his election campaign in 2022: “We assure all of you that we will defeat terrorism. The task ahead is to move forward with clarity of purpose guided by the Renewed Hope agenda to build a prosperous Nigeria.”

Pacificism for unbridled provocation.

The General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Pastor Enoch Adejare Adeboye, during the church’s first Friday of the month prayer session on June 7, told his congregation that he had weighed into the Trump’s threat and counselled that Tinubu should proceed to “beg” the US president to give him a “100-day window” to tackle the insurgency that the latter had frowned at.

Adeboye did not want an attack on Nigeria, so he favoured what he called dialogue. But he seemed unaware of how long such dialogue could take between advantaged (United States) and disadvantaged (Nigeria) parties, especially when tensions are high-wired. But he made a valid point, though, perhaps in allusion to China, saying Nigerians would be deluded to think any country would rise in its defence in the event of an attack launched by the United States.

There are dramatic flavours to the Trump threat, perhaps not unexpected.

At the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly, Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, ducked a categorical comment, saying: “The issue borders on foreign policy and diplomatic relations and will require a co-ordinated national response.”

A former chief of army staff and former interior minister, Gen Abdulrahman Dambazau, at the 7th Annual Lecture of the Just Friends Club of Nigeria (JFCN) in Abuja said: “Simply, the United States is looking for an opportunity to establish an alternative base in Nigeria.”

To cap it all, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, in a letter dated November 6 written to president Trump and addressed to the United States Embassy in Abuja through his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, said: “You have seen the truth: Christians in Nigeria face an existential threat.

I write to you now to reveal that this challenge affects the Igbo heartland, where Judeo-Christians continue to suffer hardship.” Kanu should have stopped there, but no he did not. He talked about his long detention and pursuit of self-determination for the Igbo people. He may be asked, for clarity: which of the three do you want Trump to focus on?