A former Commander of the Special Task Force, Operation Safe Haven, Maj. Gen. Henry Ayoola (retd.), speaks with The Punch on the security implications of United States President Donald Trump’s threat to deploy military forces to Nigeria over the alleged genocide against Christians

Nigeria and the United States have been entangled in a diplomatic row following the US President Donald Trump’s threat to deploy military forces to the country over alleged genocide against Christians. What is your assessment of this development?

I have discovered that many people talking about this issue don’t even know about the existence of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. That’s a body under the US Department of State, established in 1998, based on what is called the International Religious Freedom Act. The act is based on internationally accepted fundamental freedoms and human rights on religion. Number one is Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which talks about the rights of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to change one’s religion and to demonstrate and interact with others on the premise of that religion without any hindrance. It is that same Article 18 that is imported verbatim into our Constitution as Section 38. So, we need to know that America didn’t just form something new.

The second international instrument is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also talks about religious freedoms and rights similar to those in the Universal Declaration. Don’t forget that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, are collectively referred to as the International Bill of Rights. These are internationally accepted instruments that determine the human rights standards many nations adopt.

Human rights laws, by the way, are international laws. Many nations that are parties to those treaties respect them. So, it was simply a domestic amplification of these international laws that led America to establish the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

What they do is publish a report every year—an annual report on the state of religious practices, abuses, and violations in every nation of the world. Nigeria had been recommended to be designated as a “Country of Particular Concern” since 2009, when Boko Haram came onto the scene. Since then, Nigeria has consistently been listed every year in the report as a Country of Particular Concern.

What does that mean?

Under the International Religious Freedom Act of America, there are three designations given to nations based on where they fall on the scale of violation of human rights regarding religious freedom. Nigeria has always been on that list. CPC are those that engage in what the Act describes as “severe violations” of religious rights. These are nations where there are systematic, continuous, and egregious violations of religious rights, particularly where the government is deemed not to be doing enough to stop those violations. Those are the ones designated as CPC.

The second category is simply “severe violation,” but still a violation of religious rights. Those are usually categorised as Special Watch List. In fact, in this year’s report, countries recommended for designation as CPC were 16. Nigeria is actually the ninth out of the 16, so it’s not peculiar to Nigeria. There are several others. China itself is among the nations recommended as CPC.

Now, countries on the SWL this year were just 12. And then, of course, there is the third category, which they call Entities of Particular Concern. These are non-state actors that also violate religious freedom and rights. Interestingly, out of the seven recommended this year, three of them operate in Nigeria and have been violating religious rights. Boko Haram is number one. The Islamic State for West African Province is number two, and recently, we have a new emerging one, the Jamaat Nasir al-Islam Wal Muslimin.

So, you can imagine, if out of the seven globally recommended, three are in Nigeria. This is the state of things people have to understand. But when I hear people say it’s not only Christians who are being killed, that Muslims are also victims, it comes across as not only a simplistic but hasty and outrightly puerile argument. Are you saying Muslims’ lives are not important? All lives matter, whether they are Muslims, Christians, traditionalists, Hausa or whatever category they belong to.

If we understand that the commonality and dignity of humanity must be held sacrosanct universally, then if it’s violated in one place, it’s violated in all places. If it’s violated in one person, it’s violated in all of us. If we understand it that way, the idea of differentiating between Christian and Muslim lives won’t surface.

For me, the issue should be that no life should be lost in the first place. This whole thing, as I see it, is just unveiling the level of logic that our elite can bring to the fore when things like this happen. Instead of focusing on the facts and figures and the real issues, we have been delving into the realm of sentiments and parochial arguments that should not even come.

Trump directed the US Department of War to prepare for possible action in Nigeria if the killings persist. What does that mean?

This is not the first time Nigeria has been designated as a CPC. Like I said, from 2009 till date, every annual report of the USCIRF has always recommended Nigeria to be designated as a CPC. The first time it was actually done was in 2020 by this same President Trump. He was the first person who responded to that recommendation and officially designated Nigeria as a CPC. But in 2021, when President Joe Biden came in, he delisted Nigeria from that designation. Interestingly, Nigeria was still recommended as a CPC on November 17, 2021. After President Biden removed us from the list, the USCIRF wrote a petition against that decision. They protested vehemently, saying their recommendation was ignored and the government did the opposite.

So, being designated a CPC is not a death sentence. It is not a ground for America to attack any nation. Several countries have been designated CPC in the past. How many people even knew that happened in 2020? If we were not attacked then, what makes anyone think we will now be attacked simply because we are designated CPC again? No.

Are you saying the CPC designation means nothing  serious?

No. What has actually happened is that some Americans, including Trump, felt more agitated, knowing that this has happened before and that the narrative has not changed. Perhaps, they believe several efforts have been made by the current government, but the situation still persists. But we cannot put any of this blame on the current government. We know that since they came in, they have made very honest, sincere, and painstaking efforts to stop this evil. We also know it is not an easy thing. It is a multi-pronged, multi-faceted, and multi-dimensional evil. You can never be sure who is on which side. It’s like fighting a fratricidal war between Nigerians and Nigerians, as it were, and so it is very difficult for the government to be sure where some of its own members stand.

If you remember, President Jonathan once cried out that some members of his cabinet were also supporting Boko Haram. Once you have a problem like that, the effort of the government is only as good as the people handling those efforts. We are talking about the application of blasphemy laws against people who are not Muslims. Let’s not even go into those things because, as far as I’m concerned, all lives matter.

There are other categories of Nigerians who have been suffering differential manipulation and marginalisation, and all kinds of treatment that fall under the definition of genocide as described by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. That’s another international instrument that defines what genocide is. It says when all of these actions are directed against national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups, then it is genocide.

Do you think Trump is serious about his threat?

I don’t want to undermine what President Trump has said. I mean, it’s America that is speaking. We know Trump’s style is quite peculiar and unique. But we also know what America stands for. At the end of October 2020, America entered both Niger and Nigeria to rescue an American. That has happened before, it’s a precedence. It tells you that it’s possible. So, I’m not discounting the fact that America has what it takes, the audacity and the military power, to do what they say they will do. But as much as that is a credible threat, it is still just a threat.

The truth is that America cannot, on the grounds of Nigeria being designated a CPC, or even with the escalated label of genocide against Christians, attack Nigeria. I mean, who would they attack now? If their aim is to protect the lives of Christians, then it’s not a matter of attacking Nigeria. It’s a matter of how they can help the Nigerian government and the security forces to wipe out this insurgency, terrorism, and banditry once and for all. And I think it’s something we should embrace.

But The New York Times published a report that the United States military has drawn up contingency plans for potential action plan in Nigeria…

When the US President gives that kind of directive, under the American system, it’s what you call a National Security Presidential Anticipatory Directive. When the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, issues such a directive, it is as real and valid as an official order. It means the military could be given just 24 hours’ notice to move, so they must prepare as if the operation would happen the next day. But that’s not new. It’s standard procedure.

Once such an alarm is raised, once that anticipatory directive is issued, there are corresponding Standard Operating Procedures that immediately follow. That’s how it works anywhere in the world. But I can tell you this confidently, America is not going to attack Nigeria.

Don’t forget that Trump said his aim is to protect Christian lives. So how does he protect Christian lands by attacking the same people living there? It’s a matter of understanding the language of deterrence, not aggression.

The report alleged that the U.S. military was preparing airstrikes on militant targets deep inside northern Nigeria, including insurgent camps, convoys, and vehicles. Shouldn’t that be a cause for concern?

Yes, but I just told you what happened on October 30, 2020, when America entered both Niger and Nigeria to rescue an American hostage. Did you know when that operation happened? Was any Nigerian killed? So, why are we suddenly worried about this one? Those who are overly alarmed now, perhaps some of them are sympathisers or supporters of these terror groups.

They’re not worried about the innocent Nigerians being killed by these groups; instead, they’re worried about the militants. And that’s the tragedy of our national and international discourse. It really pisses me off. We keep focusing on the supposed victims, while ignoring who is doing the killing. It’s as if those ones are sacred cows that must never be touched. Now that someone wants to help us to deal with them, people are crying foul. What a nation!

The Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala, said the US can’t invade Nigeria without the Nigerian President’s approval. How true is that?

Yes, of course. In fact, when that operation happened at the end of October 2020, the Federal Government actually gave a nod for it. The Nigerian Armed Forces cooperated fully with the US military. It wasn’t something that happened unilaterally. And did we not do something similar under President Jonathan? It was a private military contractor engaged then. That was why the 2015 election was able to hold in the North-East. Most of the credit the Buhari administration later claimed for clearing insurgents in the region actually belonged to the Jonathan era.

If private military contractors could achieve that much, how many non-insurgent or non-terrorist lives were lost? You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Even in the military cycle, there are what we call self-inflicted injuries or blue-on-blue—that’s friendly fire. It happens. So, the real question is: what do we trade off because we have to give something in exchange.

As we speak, gangs, terrorists, and bandits have practically overrun several parts of this nation. So, between resolving that once and for all, even if it involves a few collateral damages and unintended consequences, and allowing this insecurity to continue endlessly, which is the better option for us? We have to decide.

Does Nigeria need US military intervention to address its terrorism challenges?

If we’ve been battling this for 16 years, do we still need anyone to tell us that external help would be beneficial? Do we need anyone to remind us that when those private military contractors came from South Africa, they achieved remarkable results in just a short time? It’s not a big deal to get military cooperation from another country. Even the most advanced nations do it. Nobody is an island. As strong as America itself is, there are certain areas of military technology, operations, strategy, and tactics where they cooperate with other nations. Israel, for instance, is very strong in some areas and works closely with the United States on many fronts: military strategy, operations, tactics, and technology. Even among European nations within NATO, there’s constant collaboration and knowledge exchange. Nobody knows it all. It doesn’t detract from our national pride to have military cooperation with another nation that can supply what we don’t yet have.

Take the 2020 rescue of Philip Walton on October 30, for example. Look at the kind of weapons and technology America deployed for that mission. Nigeria doesn’t have that capacity. The US has strategic satellites that can pinpoint exact locations. That’s how they tracked the kidnappers’ phone calls, monitored their movements, and located where Walton was being held. Their aircraft landed several kilometres away to avoid detection and then advanced on foot, undetected, to rescue him. We don’t have that yet. America is far more technologically advanced. Rome wasn’t built in a day, we’re still developing. Even developed nations collaborate and share research on military capabilities, so what’s the big deal if we do the same

If we want to play smart about this, we should thank God that our situation has attracted international, especially American, attention, and that they’re even willing to help us. Who doesn’t want insurgency, terrorism, and banditry to end in Nigeria? But we must be realistic; it won’t come at zero cost.

How do you mean?

America is not Father Christmas. They won’t help us out of pure love. Every nation acts based on its national interest. Look at our own history: we went to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and other countries without any follow-up strategy to benefit from the peace we helped restore. Our businessmen didn’t even go in to take advantage of the openings we created. America doesn’t operate like that. So, they have something to gain. It’s not because they suddenly love Christians so much, or Africans so much. We all know the same President Trump and what he said about Africans during his first tenure, and even in this one. It’s not as if he’s suddenly fallen in love with us.

Former Chief of Army Staff and former Minister of Interior, Lt. Gen. (retd) Abdulrahman Dambazau, on Tuesday, suggested that the United States might be using these claims as a pretext to establish a military base in Nigeria. How true is that?

There’s a plethora of options and possibilities behind why America is doing what it’s doing. But if we’re going to play smart as a nation, we must understand that we can’t stop them from having their own motives or interests. What matters most is this: do we like the current state of security in Nigeria? Do we want it to continue?

We’ve been trying the same approach since 2009, and we’re still here. One of our former Chiefs of Army Staff once told the National Assembly, after he retired, that the war against terrorism in the North-East wouldn’t be won even in the next 20 years. Now, that’s someone who was in charge of the fight. Doesn’t that tell you something? It means even our best efforts will take a long time to yield results. So, if we find external help that can expedite the process, should we not at least weigh that option? Let’s put all options on the table, do a proper strategic analysis; look at what we’ll gain and what we’ll lose. It’s a trade-off. You win some, you lose some. That’s how the world works. Nobody wins all.