The recent statement by US President Donald Trump on faith-based violence in Nigeria has sparked debate, with some claiming it aligns with a sectarian agenda. However, a closer examination of his comments reveals a more nuanced approach. Trump avoided describing the situation as “genocide,” instead referring to an “existential threat to Christians.” He also identified “radical Islamists” as the perpetrators of violence, rather than the Nigerian state or Muslims in general.
This is not the first time Trump has raised concerns about violence against Christians in Nigeria. During a 2018 meeting with former President Muhammadu Buhari, Trump expressed concern about religious violence, including the burning of churches and killing of Christians. Buhari responded by framing the violence as part of complex socio-security dynamics, rather than a conspiracy against Christians.
The claim of “genocide” against Christians in Nigeria does not meet the legal definition established by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is no credible evidence that the Nigerian government is masterminding the destruction of Christians. The origins of violence in Nigeria are rooted in terrorism, banditry, communal conflicts, resource competition, and weak governance.
Trump’s statement, while focused on Christian victims, does not mirror the propaganda promoted by some far-right commentators. He singled out radical extremists, which aligns with the Nigerian government’s position and reflects the sacrifices of its multi-faith armed forces in confronting terrorism. The US government has also taken a balanced approach, with Senior Adviser Massad Boulos dismissing claims of religious persecution and targeted genocide against Christians in Nigeria.
The Nigerian government has responded with restraint, acknowledging concerns and reaffirming its commitment to religious freedom. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has emphasized partnership with the US in tackling violent extremism, which is the central theme of Trump’s statement. This approach is reminiscent of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s diplomatic efforts during his meeting with Trump, where he chose to engage with facts rather than be provoked.
The diplomatic steps ahead will be guided by Trump’s directive to US lawmakers to investigate the matter and report back to him. This presents an opportunity for the Nigerian government to provide a comprehensive perspective on the country’s security realities. A balanced interpretation of the situation has been echoed at the highest levels of the US government, and it is likely that reason will prevail in the diplomatic engagement between the two nations.