My Blog

Tag: Donald Trump

  • Trump’s World Cup stress test and prospects of Europe’s boycott

    Trump’s World Cup stress test and prospects of Europe’s boycott

    By

    UGO ONUOHA

    FEDERATION of International Football Associations [FIFA] awarded hosting rights for this year’s football World Cup tournament to three North American countries about eight years ago, precisely on June 13, 2018. That was in keeping with the longstanding tradition of the world’s football governing body. FIFA allows the host nation sufficient time to provide or improve facilities for the global fiesta. Thousands of people including officials, footballers, fans, tourists and others usually converged on the host nation to attend the events. Some persons who may not be football fans and followers use the opportunity of the World Cup for sightseeing and tourism.

    This year’s World Cup football tournament will be different in many respects. It will be the first time that three neighbouring countries – the United States, Canada and Mexico – will be jointly hosting the tournament. The highest combination, to the best of our recollections, was joint hosting between South Korea and Japan in 2002. All the while it had been solo hosting by willing and endowed countries beginning from Uruguay in 1930 to Qatar four years ago. Again, while there were 32 countries battling for supremacy in Qatar in 2022, 48 countries will be contending for the Cup this year in the United States, Canada and Mexico. This has never happened before.

    And because of the expanded format, Africa was allotted nine automatic slots with the potential to be 10 through a play-off, against the five slots allocated to the continent in the 32-country arrangement. Sadly, and in spite of the 100% increase in the slots available to Africa, Nigeria which is arguably a footballing giant on the continent could not pick a slot. It failed in the automatic qualification for one of the nine spots. It qualified to pick the remaining slot through a play-off in Africa and a final meeting with a qualifier from another confederation. Again, Nigeria failed at the Africa huddle, losing to the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]. Nigeria, the self-styled giant of Africa will be MIA [missing in action] in successive world cup tournaments, Qatar 2022 and US/Canada/Mexico 2026. How has the mighty fallen?

    This year’s football tournament has been projected to be the best attended, the most spectacular and the most profitable. But it could turn out not to be. In 2018 when the hosting right was awarded to the US and its neighbours, Donald J. Trump was the president of America. In the years while the US prepared to host a potentially spectacular event, Trump was out of power having lost his reelection bid to Joe Biden in 2020. He still denies that he lost that election and also rejected accusations that he inspired the storming of the Capitol [parliament] by his supporters who violently attempted to stop the certification of the election results. Trump was returned to the American presidency in January this year, in time to be the chief host of the American leg of the tournament. And that’s where the problem starts. Before Trump acceded to the White House in 2016, he gave indications during the campaigns that he would be an unconventional president. And he was. However, there were people embedded in American politics and bureaucracy who worked against him and curbed his excesses. He was constrained and was frustrated.

    But Trump 2.0 has been a different ballgame from the very beginning last January 20. He returned prepared and appointed those who shared his weird governing philosophy to strategic positions. He ignored Congress [parliament] and set up DOGE [the so-called department for government efficiency], armed his now estranged friend and billionaire, Elon Musk, with a chainsaw to decimate the bureaucracy. He did in sacking many government workers but failed in the goal to save money. Indeed, the report was that the exercise ended up increasing the cost of the government. Ostensibly by design, Musk’s name was not forwarded to Congress for consideration as a member of Trump’s Cabinet. Apart from Musk, Trump also had the almost 1000-page Agenda 2025, a governing template pre-prepared for Trump by the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation as a governing philosophy. When the document was exposed prior to the 2024 election, Trump had vehemently denied knowledge of the document and any association with the promoters. Americans knew that he was lying but voted for him anyway.

    The challenge now is that Trump’s unconventional or peculiar way of running the United States is spilling over into the organisation of the World Cup. Before now and with lesser mortals, FIFA would never have tolerated the meddling into the management of football and the organisation of its tournaments by politically exposed persons and government officials. Not anymore or so it seems. Trump fired the first salvo by threatening to strip some American cities of hosting rights, and arbitrarily transferring the same to other cities ostensibly controlled by Republicans. By design or coincidence, some of the host cities and states under threat of stripping them of hosting rights are those administered by Democrats as mayors or governors. Trump is Republican. He claims that cities and states run by Democrats were prone to protests and riots without providing evidence.  For the first time since Uruguay hosted the maiden World Cup in 1930, 96 years ago, political affiliation has become a consideration for cities to host world cup matches in a host country.

    However, FIFA’s vice president, Victor Montagliani, quickly shot back telling Trump that football was bigger than any country. He had said that “with all due respect to … world leaders football is bigger than them and football would survive their regime, and their government, and slogans”. But before this face-off, the American state department had announced visa restrictions on about 75 countries including a big footballing nation, Brazil. All the qualifying countries from Africa, nine of them, are under the hammer of these visa restrictions except South Africa. Even that exception falls under what the US state department describes as qualified visa restriction. In effect, all the qualifying countries from Africa are in dire danger of the disruptions of the movements of their teams, associated staff, football federation officials, and supporters into the US for the football fiesta that starts on June 11 in Mexico, about five months away.

    For Africans in particular, football would lose its essence in the absence of the travelling supporters of the national teams. The non-stop singing and drumming and dancing in stadiums will be felt and will take a toll on the motivations of the players during matches. Arguably, Nigeria has the most vocal supporters club for their national team. But Nigeria did not qualify for this World Cup so the national team’s supporters club would not have valid reasons to seek visas into the US this time. But what about South Africa and their vuvuzela which they introduced when they hosted a highly successful World Cup tournament in 2010. You can argue that a vuvuzela can be picked up in any neighbourhood shop in any American host city, but a vuvuzela in the hands and the mouths of its creator, a South African, sounded differently and certainly more menacingly. South Africans have a way of using the vuvuzela to pass coded messages to their players who are doing battle in the field. National team supporters constitute the 12th player in the field of 11 players.

    FIFA promotes football as a tool and force for unity. This slogan will face an acid test in Trump’s America in the World Cup months of June and July. The vicious and violent anti-immigrants policy of President Trump will ensure that. An immigration policy that has no respect for sanctuary cities in some states in America, the churches and the law courts, will certainly pay scant regard to stadiums and fan zones as no-go areas during the World Cup. Overzealous Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] operatives will find stadiums and fan zones and hotels as fertile grounds to meet their monthly targets for the arrest of immigrants for detention and deportation. What this means is that legal migrants and undocumented ones from countries that qualified for the tournament will avoid match venues for their own safety.

    Football enthusiasts from Iran and Haiti are forbidden from travelling to the US. They are fully banned though their national football teams qualified for the tournament. Of the nine qualifiers from Africa so far, only South Africa can be said to be partially off the hook. The rest – Algeria, Cape Verde, Egypt, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Senegal and Tunisia – are under one form of the American visa restrictions or the other. If DR Congo which eliminated Nigeria from the race succeeds in the inter-confederations play-off it will fall under the visa restrictions category. FIFA is trapped in America. Its aspiration of inclusivity through football is directly in conflict with Trump’s divisive immigration policy. The rigging by Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s president, of the so-called FIFA Peace Prize specially for Trump to appease him when the Nobel Peace Prize committee overlooked him in the 2025 award, has not helped the situation. The presentation ceremony for the award and the fawning of Infantino over Trump at the event was a spectacle with unrivalled ugly dimension.

    Now Infantino will have to contend with a troubled tournament even before the games start. He may have to preside over a tournament that could fell far short of expectations and projections. He will have to superintendent a World Cup that excludes three quarters of the world, among them football loving countries. And football as we know it is neither the number one sport in America nor even number two. For Infantino this will be a dilemma with implications for the future. He has allowed Trump to use his corrosive brand of politics to trump football. Future host nations of the World Cup would also be inclined to introduce politics to the game. For instance, Saudi Arabia is slated to host the World Cup in 2034. It will be the sole host of the 48-country format unlike this year’s that will be jointly hosted by the US, Canada and Mexico. What will Infantino and FIFA do on the eve of the tournament if the Saudis introduce a visa policy that excludes gay people? What Trump is doing to the world of football could be the beginning of the diminution of football as a global brand and a force for unity not tainted by overt partisan politics of member countries of FIFA and host nations of the tournament.

    There are other implications of the exclusion of three quarters of the world from the 2026 tournament by the US which is one of the host nations. Airline bookings to the match centres are likely to crater; hotel reservations by football fans from countries affected by visa bans and restrictions would be cancelled; restaurants in the host cities may have to review their plans and projections; the same would apply to tour operators; and, companies that sponsor interpreters but which operate in the countries under visa bans or restrictions may have to review their operations. Apart from these, global brands who are the major sponsors of the World Cup would now be wondering whether their investments would be worthwhile given the virtual exclusion of broadcast audiences from emerging markets. These markets are the new frontiers they are working to reach with their messages, products and services. They could be wondering whether football lovers in such countries would still be enthusiastic in following the tournament on television, radio or through other means. It will be a tough call. But it will not be a call for Infantino alone.

    Postscript

    The prospects of a tragic 2026 World Cup became starker at the weekend with the vice president of the DFA, the German football federation, Oke Gottlich, hinting at Germany boycotting the tournament because of Trump’s immigration and imperialist policies. Trump has been talking about seizing Greenland, an autonomous island under the sovereignty of Denmark. Analysts say that if Germany shuns the World Cup, Denmark is likely to follow suit immediately. Indeed, the potential boycott of the tournament will have a domino effect with European nations walking away. No disrespect intended, but nobody goes to the World Cup to watch Haiti play against DR Congo. No global brand will expend millions of Dollars on any World Cup tournament sponsorship in which European football power houses are excluded. That will not happen. No broadcasting network will pay for rights for such a tournament. If Europe boycotts the World Cup, it means that half of the 48 countries will be out of the tournament. And if countries under the current US visa restrictions join Europe, it will be game over, no pun intended. And all these will be down to one man – Donald Trump.

    Ugo Onuoha is a Veteran Journalist and former Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief, Champion Newspapers Limited

  • The buffoonery of so-called ‘Don-roe Doctrine’

    The buffoonery of so-called ‘Don-roe Doctrine’

    By

    UGO ONUOHA

    Donald Trump’s reckless distortion of the Monroe Doctrine to justify the invasion of Venezuela exposes not grand strategy, but hypocrisy, imperial nostalgia, and the accelerating decline of American moral authority.

    A dangerous mix of crude oil lust, militarism, and authoritarian impulse now masquerades as U.S. foreign policy.

    JAMES Monroe was the fifth president of the United States of America. He served for eight years between 1817 – 1825. To an extent, even up till now, and in spite of the deep divisions within American society, his presidency is often regarded as the “Era of Good Feelings”. This was down to what was called the relative peace and unity during that time. Monroe did not earn his place in history and in the pantheon of great American presidents by his delivery of grand or, as we are wont to say here in Nigeria, legacy projects. No. But he secured his place in the hearts and minds of successive generations of Americans through his bold and grand vision for his country and the Western Hemisphere [the Americas in particular].

    That grand vision of more than 200 years ago [1823] was encapsulated in what became known as the Monroe Doctrine which became the cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades, and even up till the present day. In essence, the Monroe Doctrine was an American policy which warned European powers against further colonization or intervention in the Americas in the immediate aftermath of decolonisation. It aimed to establish the Americas as a US sphere of influence. As a corollary, the US committed to non-interference in European affairs. The aim was to keep the New World separate from Old World politics and to prevent monarchies in Europe from reclaiming colonies after countries in Latin America gained their independence. Subsequently, the Doctrine was used to justify the assertion of American dominance in the region and interventions in Latin America and indeed elsewhere.

    The key principles of the Monroe Doctrine included that the American continents were closed to any future European colonization; any European attempt to control, meddle or interfere with countries in the Western Hemisphere would be seen as a hostile act against the US; and, the US would steer clear of European political affairs and wars.

    The Monroe Doctrine, as should be expected, has been used and abused in the hegemonic disposition of the US in the over 200 years of its formulation. It has been used to pressure presidents of countries in Latin America and in other places who were perceived as not promoting and protecting US interests; it has been deployed for regime change in the region; it has been canvassed to justify the assassinations of leaders of other countries, and the installation of friendly regimes; it has formed the basis for occupying some Latin American countries; the Doctrine has formed the basis for the invasion and the abduction of regional leaders who were subsequently put on trial in American courts of law.

    It was the Monroe Doctrine which, as he’s wont to do, President Donald Trump, is attempting to bastardise by branding it as ‘Don-roe [after his own first name, Donald] Doctrine’, that he used for the invasion and kidnapping of the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro. And then bundling him and his wife to the US to face charges on Trump’s so-called ‘narco-terrorism’ crime. To justify his modern day gangsterism, Trump claimed that Venezuela under Maduro, had been “increasingly hosting foreign adversaries in our region and acquiring menacing offensive weapons that could threaten US interests”. He said Maduro’s actions were in “gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy dating back more than two centuries”. We will recall that the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction [WMD] was the reason that the US adduced for the invasion and destruction of Iraq. It was a ruse.

    All were pretexts. Being profound and high-minded were not the forte of Donald Trump. He is banal. He is shallow. He lacks basic human decency. He is not capable of deep thought. He could be regarded as clever. He could pass as being smart. But that will only be in the class of crooks. In any case, he is a convicted felon. Trump is probably the only known practiced liar who is incapable of sustaining a lie. And that could be because 10 out of every nine words out of his mouth are likely to be lies. The reasons he adduced for abducting Maduro have all crumbled. He crumbled them himself along with his regime’s band of bare-faced liars. And racists.

    Let’s make an attempt to deconstruct Trump and his rationales for going into Venezuela and abducting its president. But before that it must be acknowledged that Maduro did not cover himself in glory in the years he was in power. There are receipts that he brazenly stole Venezuela’s presidential election of last year. But if stolen election is sufficient grounds for a foreign power to oust the president of another country, some people who are sitting pretty in the presidencies of some African and third world countries would have long been sacked and jailed. Some of such presidents are consumed by working out how their henchmen will rig elections, cause violence in their opponents strongholds, compromise election managers, use security agencies to intimidate opposition figures, deploy anti-graft agents to harass and besmirch rivals, and ‘snatch, grab and run’ away with results on election day, and finally cause a ‘technical glitch’ on the portal for the transmission of election results, than in governing and doing good for a majority of their people.

    Trump accused Maduro of being at the head of a drug cartel called Cartel de los Soles [or Cartel of the Suns], and so undeserving of continuing to be the president of neighbouring Venezuela. That could not be sustained because on December 1, 2025, the same Trump had pardoned a former president of another neighbouring country Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was arrested under President Joe Biden by US law enforcement agents, arraigned in a US court, convicted, and sentenced to prison for importing 400 tons of cocaine into America. Hernandez, who served as president from 2014 to 2022, was convicted for turning Honduras into a “narco-state” and accepting bribes from drug traffickers. He was to be in prison for 45 years. The hypocrisy should be staggering. Indeed, at the arraignment of Maduro and his wife in New York last week, the frequently bandied name of the drug cartel that Maduro allegedly headed for the drug business was not mentioned in the charge sheet. Pretext number one crushed. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, is notorious for his alleged links to the MS-13 criminal group but he visits the White House at the instance of Trump and is treated to a red carpet reception. He was in the Oval Office last year. There have been credible allegations that Bukele’s regime made deals with the gang, offering them power and financial incentives in exchange for reducing violence and supporting his ruling party, Nuevas Ideas, during elections. He is Trump’s friend.

    Then Trump said that Maduro was a dictator which is true. But that also cannot be a justification for kidnapping another country’s president. Trump himself is a wannabe dictator. He had said so severally himself. His circle of friends comprises strongmen whom he admires and dotes on, including the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, the president of Turkiye, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president of China who is also the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, Xi Jinping. So if Trump admires dictators, he should be in love with Maduro. Another reason out the window. Trump said one of the things he liked about Xi was that he seized power for life. Maduro rigged elections to cling on to power also for life. He is not different from Xi who fiddled with the constitution of China to remain in office for life. But for Trump, it’s different strokes for different folks.

    The other reason for Trump kidnapping Maduro was that he was not a legitimately elected president of his country. He rigged an election. If that be the case, the expectation should be that with Maduro’s ouster the opposition candidate who was said to have won that election would have been installed. But no. Maduro’s vice president who was his running mate in the discredited election was instead sworn in as the president of Venezuela. Trump is working with her and has already extracted a gift of 50 million barrels of crude oil. Trump has said America would sell the crude at the ruling market rate, and that he would personally control the use of the proceeds of the sale.

    Meanwhile, it has been proven that Venezuela sits atop over 300 billion barrels of crude oil, reported to be the largest crude oil reserve in the world. Trump said that Maduro had to be removed because the oil belonged to America. He said US oil giants including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Philips and others were in the know about the plot. And that they would move in to take over the oil fields. The oil companies have since disclaimed the story. When finally Trump held a meeting with the oil executives last week, they gave him a condition for the transaction – that the American government, read taxpayers, should fork out a minimum of $100 billion to subsidize their potential return and investment and revamping of Venezuela’s degraded upstream and downstream oil sectors. ExxonMobil chief said that his company had a bitter experience in Venezuela about 40 years ago, and so would hedge its bet on the country this time around. In other words, the oil executives were saying that for them to return to Venezuela, the poor people of the US should fund the venture of the rich oil companies. Of course, as usual Trump had lied that he consulted with the American oil majors before and after his invasion of Venezuela.

    Furthermore, Trump said that Venezuela was not a democracy. But there has been no talk of restoring democracy since the removal of Maduro. President Trump merely said he would run the country for an indeterminate period. He has not mentioned conducting any elections. Instead the rumps of the Maduro regime continue to hold on to power. He has dismissed the winner of the latest Nobel Peace Prize, a Venezuelan opposition figure, saying that she did not possess leadership capacity. But Trump added that she could be considered for some sort of role in governing that country if she gave him the Nobel Peace Prize when she visits Washington soon. Trump coveted and vigorously campaigned for the Prize before it was awarded to Maria Corina Machado, a politician and activist who was recognised for her efforts to achieve peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy in Venezuela. The world football governing body, [FIFA] has since manufactured its own peace laureate and awarded it to Trump in an elaborate ceremony ostensibly to pacify him. America, Canada, and Mexico are jointly hosting this year’s football world cup.

    So why did Trump invade Venezuela and kidnap Maduro. There are three possibilities. Trump has been enamoured by the phrase: take their oil. He had been quoted as saying that a grave mistake that America made when it invaded Iraq in 2003 was in not seizing that country’s oil fields and assets. And he is now insistent on seizing Venezuela’s oil. This is in spite of the fact that America is an oil producer with sizable crude deposits. Secondly, Trump is mortally afraid that Venezuela was becoming a staging post for the encirclement of the US by hostel and rival powers such as Russia and China. And in addition, Venezuela’s adoption of transactions for its crude oil sales in currencies other than the Dollar posed an immediate danger to the American currency. It did not matter to Trump that on this issue the horse has since bolted from the stable. Russia and BRICS nations have already made tremendous advances in de-Dollarisation of global trade. BRICS and partner countries now make up more than half of the world’s gross domestic product [GDP]. And they are perfecting payments for trades amongst themselves without using the USD. The American century is almost over. Trump is only helping to accelerate the decline.

    However, the most important reason for Trump’s adventures could be his love for the use of the American military might in an unrestrained and unconstrained manner. Last week he bombed ISIS in Syria. Previously, he had bombed Iran, Nigeria and other places for incoherent reasons especially in the case of Nigeria. His flexing of military might has not been limited to foreign lands. He also has attempted to use the American military inside the US in spite of the act being forbidden by the US constitution. He federalised the American National Guard for domestic law enforcement in some cities controlled by the opposition Democrat Party. It was even suggested that he planned to use the military to intimidate voters during the midterm elections in November which he feared his Republican Party would lose. And in the 2028 election. But the US supreme court has stopped him by declaring that he is constitutionally forbidden from federalising the National Guard. Democracies die when megalomaniacs and buffoons accede to power. That’s the fate that awaits the US with Trump in the presidency. The sun is setting on America as a city on the hill and a force for global good.

  • U.S. Strike on ISIS in Sokoto Sparks Questions Over Motive and Target Selection

    U.S. Strike on ISIS in Sokoto Sparks Questions Over Motive and Target Selection

    Abuja — As security analysts question the true motive behind recent U.S. military action in Nigeria, U.S. President Donald Trump has said American forces carried out strikes against Islamic State (ISIS) targets in the country’s northwest, citing attacks on Christians amid worsening insecurity.

    In a post on his Truth Social platform late Thursday, Trump said the operation targeted ISIS fighters he accused of “viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians.”

    “The United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria,” Trump wrote. He added a Christmas message that included a warning that further attacks would result in additional U.S. military action.

    Motive Under Scrutiny

    The stated rationale for the strike has drawn skepticism from Nigerian security experts and residents, particularly in Sokoto State, where the targets were reportedly located.

    Retired Nigerian Air Force officer and security analyst, Group Captain Sadeeq Shehu (rtd), is among those questioning the true motive of the operation. He called for urgent clarification from relevant authorities, especially regarding the reported selection of Jabo, a community in Sokoto State.

    He urged authorities to provide:

    • A transparent explanation—within security limits—of the intelligence basis for the strike
    • Clear assurances on civilian harm mitigation
    • Verification and accountability mechanisms to assess potential collateral damage

    “People in Sokoto are not dismissing security threats,” Shehu said. “They are asking for logic, evidence, and accountability.”

    Across the state, a recurring question continues to surface:
    Why Jabo? Why Sokoto, of all places in a country grappling with terrorism in multiple regions? Was this a symbolic strike on what some consider the historical ‘seat of the Caliphate’?

    Pentagon Releases Video

    The Pentagon later released video footage appearing to show a missile being launched from a U.S. warship. Officials did not immediately disclose details on casualties or the extent of damage caused by the strike.

    According to the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), the targets were located in Sokoto State. U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said he was “grateful for Nigerian government support and cooperation” following the operation.

    Rising Violence in Nigeria

    The strike comes amid growing security challenges in Africa’s most populous country, particularly in the north and northeast, where Islamist militant groups remain active.

    Boko Haram, which originated in Nigeria, along with Islamic State–affiliated factions, has intensified attacks in recent weeks. Mass abductions from churches and schools have heightened fear and unrest among local populations.

    Earlier this month, Trump warned that Washington could intervene if attacks on Christians continued, urging the Nigerian government to prevent further bloodshed or risk reduced U.S. aid.

    Despite those warnings, violence has persisted. On Thursday, a suicide bombing in northeastern Nigeria killed at least five people and injured 35 others, according to a police spokesperson.

    Limited Details on Casualties

    U.S. officials have not released figures on the number of militants killed in the strike, and Nigerian authorities have yet to issue a comprehensive public response.

    As questions linger over intelligence, targeting, and civilian impact, the situation remains fluid, with Nigeria continuing to battle multiple insurgent groups across several regions.

  • The Misuse of “Genocide” in Nigeria’s Public Discourse

    The Misuse of “Genocide” in Nigeria’s Public Discourse

    Contextualizing The Horrific Killings in Nigeria Within The International Convention Against Genocide

    By Wale Alonge

    Since President Donald Trump’s 2020 threat to “invade Nigeria” to stop what he called “the targeted genocide of Nigerian Christians by Muslims,” the term genocide has gained sudden, viral currency across Nigerian social media. It is now used casually, cavalierly, and often without any understanding of its historical roots or the international legal framework that defines it.

    When such a morally charged word is used loosely, it dilutes its moral and legal force — and makes enforcement far more difficult in genuine cases of genocide. That is why it is critical to define and apply it precisely, something sorely lacking in Nigeria’s public conversations.

    It is deeply ironic that the same President Trump who refuses to describe the state-sponsored mass killing, starvation, and displacement of Palestinians in Gaza as genocide was so quick to use the word for Nigeria’s communal violence.

    I am a Christian, so this is not a case of a non-Christian downplaying the killings of Christians. There is no doubt that many Nigerian Christians have been victims of murderous attacks by Islamist jihadist groups — often targeted specifically in their houses of worship. Only yesterday, reports emerged from Kwara State of Christians being slaughtered and kidnapped in church.

    But so have Muslims — indeed, in larger numbers according to widely available data — including many attacked in mosques. These killings are largely random, carried out by non-state insurgents and criminal militias using hit-and-run, opportunistic tactics, often also targeting government forces. There is no demonstrated element of state-sponsored intent to destroy a protected group, which is central to any credible genocide claim.

    What “Genocide” Actually Means

    The word itself derives from the Greek genos (“tribe” or “race”) and the Latin caedere (“to kill”). Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined it during World War II, and in 1946 the United Nations General Assembly first recognized genocide as an international crime. It was later codified in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    Article II of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group:

    • Killing members of the group
    • Causing serious bodily or mental harm
    • Deliberately inflicting conditions of life aimed at destroying the group
    • Imposing measures intended to prevent births
    • Forcibly transferring children to another group

    The most difficult and crucial element is intent. Genocide requires a proven intention to physically destroy a protected group — not merely to displace it, weaken it, or target individuals for other reasons. This “special intent” (dolus specialis) distinguishes genocide from other international crimes.

    Nigeria’s Reality

    Every innocent life unjustly taken is one life too many. Nothing in this analysis minimizes the suffering of Nigerian Christians killed or displaced by jihadists or murderous Fulani militias that have devastated farming communities — particularly in the Middle Belt — through cycles of violence stretching back decades.

    But as horrific as these crimes are, to call them genocide is to misapply the term. The Genocide Convention arose from the ashes of the Holocaust — the targeted, systematic, state-orchestrated extermination of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. That context matters.

    Nigeria’s insecurity is a grave humanitarian crisis, but not one that fits the legal or moral definition of genocide. The danger in misusing the word lies not just in linguistic carelessness, but in the erosion of its power to mobilize international justice where it is most needed — in places where governments, not bandits, plot the destruction of entire peoples.

    If we are to confront Nigeria’s violence meaningfully, we must name it for what it is: terrorism, mass atrocity, and state failure — not genocide. To do otherwise cheapens both the suffering of the victims and the gravity of one of humanity’s most serious crimes.

    Adewale Alonge, PhD, Founder & President, Africa Diaspora Partnership for Empowerment and Development. www.adped.org, writes in from Dadeland, Miami, Florida, USA.

  • US Vice President, JD Vance, wife visit Greenland amid annexation tensions

    US Vice President, JD Vance, wife visit Greenland amid annexation tensions

    U.S. Vice President JD Vance announced that he would accompany his wife, Usha Vance, on her planned visit to Greenland later this week.

    “There is so much excitement around Usha’s visit to Greenland this Friday that I decided I didn’t want her to have all that fun by herself, so I’m going to join her.

    I’ll be visiting some of our guardians in the Space Force on the northwest coast of Greenland, and also just checking out what’s going on with the security there,’’ JD Vance said in a video posted on X.

    He went on to mention the Pituffik Space Base, a significant U.S. military installation in Greenland.

    Originally, Usha’s travel plans included visits to historic sites and participation in a traditional dog-sledding race.

    However, the White House announced a change in the itinerary, canceling the dog sled race and replacing it with a meeting with U.S. military officials.

    “Speaking for U.S. President Donald Trump, we want to reinvigorate the security of the people of Greenland because we think it’s important for protecting the security of the entire world,’’ JD Vance stated.

    Trump has repeatedly mentioned wanting to assert control over Greenland, citing national and international security concerns.

    However, Greenland’s politicians and most of its population oppose the idea of it becoming a U.S. territory.

    In a related development, the Greenland government denied claims made by Trump that a U.S. delegation, including Usha Vance, had been invited to the island.

    The government in Nuuk clarified that no official or private invitation had been extended.

    Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen also criticized the visit, emphasizing that Greenland did not welcome such a gesture.

    She noted that both Greenland and Denmark were under undue pressure but would stand firm.

    Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., had previously visited Nuuk earlier this year, further drawing attention to the tense relationship between Greenland and the U.S.

  • As Trump tariff on UK steel kicks in, industry trembles

    As Trump tariff on UK steel kicks in, industry trembles

    U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs on UK steel “couldn’t come at a worse time,” the industry has warned as the levy on U.S. imports is introduced.

    The British steel and aluminium industries are braced for the impact of the U.S. president’s tariffs, which came in at midnight in the US, around 0400 GMT.

    The UK government is unlikely to immediately retaliate to the 25 per cent import tax, with officials stressing the need for a “cool-headed approach”, after last-ditch efforts to persuade Trump to spare British industry from his global tariffs appeared to have failed.

    The European Union announced it would be implementing counter tariffs on 28 billion dollars worth of goods starting on April 1.

    Gareth Stace, the director general of trade association UK Steel, branded the Trump administration’s move “hugely disappointing.”

    READ ALSO: National Assembly commemorates Commonwealth Day 2025

    He added: “President Trump must surely recognise that the UK is an ally, not a foe.

    “Our steel sector is not a threat to the U.S. but a partner to key customers, sharing the same values and objectives in addressing global overcapacity and tackling unfair trade.

    “These tariffs couldn’t come at a worse time for the UK steel industry, as we battle with high energy costs and subdued demand at home, against an oversupplied and increasingly protectionist global landscape.

    “What’s more, the EU is also pushing ahead with trade restrictive action that will amplify the impact of U.S. tariffs.”

    Stace added: “It is essential that the UK Government not only continues efforts to negotiate exemptions with the U.S. but also takes decisive action to bolster our trade defences.

    “We greatly appreciate all the efforts that have been made so far and will continue working closely with our Government to secure the best possible outcome.”

    The aluminium industry body had earlier warned the looming import taxes were already having an effect.

    Nadine Bloxsome, chief executive of the Aluminium Federation, said: “The UK aluminium sector is already seeing the first impacts of these tariffs.

    “The sharp rise in U.S. premiums has created new incentives for scrap exports, raising the risk of significant domestic scrap leakage.

    This not only weakens the UK’s recycling capacity but risks undermining our sustainability objectives and circular economy targets.

    “Additionally, the uncertainty around potential trade diversion is placing considerable pressure on UK producers, especially as semi-finished goods may flood the UK market at lower costs.

    READ ALSO: Five candidates to contest for AfDB Presidency

    “This could severely destabilise the competitiveness of UK aluminium manufacturers, who are already contending with high energy costs and complex regulatory challenges.”

    William Bain, head of trade policy for the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said the decision plunged both countries “into a new age of uncertainty.”

    He said: “BCC research shows that 63 per cent of our manufacturing exporters were concerned about the impact of tariffs before their introduction.

    “But today’s setback does not mean we have reached the end of the road in terms of negotiations. Tariffs can be lifted at any time.

    “Businesses will be looking to the UK Government to continue dialogue, with the U.S., to resolve this situation and restore certainty for firms, which has been badly lacking over recent weeks.”

    He continued: “Against this background, a series of tit-for-tat tariffs could easily spiral into an all-out trade war and would do the UK little benefit.

    “We must keep talks alive and retaliatory tariffs should only be used as a means of last resort.

    “If talks succeed, it would be a win-win, bringing welcome stability and pro-growth economic conditions for both sides.”

    The issue was discussed in a call between UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Trump on Monday, and ministers and officials have been in frequent talks with their U.S. counterparts since the measures were first proposed in February.

    The UK prime minister’s official spokesman said the government was “engaging closely with the U.S. and we remain prepared to defend the UK’s national interest where it’s right to do so.”

    He added: “The Government’s committed 2.5 billion pounds (3.2 billion dollars) of investment to rebuild the UK steel industry and support communities now and for generations to come.”

    The government estimates around 5 per cent of UK steel exports and 6 per cent of aluminium exports by volume go to the U.S., although the aluminium industry body said the U.S. market accounted for 10 per cent of exports – valued at 225 million pounds

    Trump has previously threatened to impose tariffs on other countries and then relented, but he remains wedded to the overall idea of making the U.S. richer through taxing imports.

    In a sign of the U.S. leader’s unpredictable approach, on the eve of the tariffs coming into force, he threatened to double the rate for Canadian metal imports from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, before backtracking at the last minute.

    Downing Street said there were “multiple engagements at multiple levels” with the U.S. administration as the Government attempted to spare UK exporters from the tariffs.

  • American Schizophrenic Politics and Foreign Policy

    American Schizophrenic Politics and Foreign Policy

    It is so confusing how to square the release posted by the Obama White House in 2014 (see link below), at the height of the kidnap of the Chibok Girls by Boko Haram, during which Michelle Obama played a crucial role to bring global attention to that crisis, with the bombshell allegation by Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry’s that the USAID under the Obama and then the Biden presidencies was actually financing the Boko Haram terrorist group.

    It makes absolutely no sense except within the context of Elon Musk’s DOGE team and their MAGA supporters dropping whoppers of falsehood, outright lies, and disinformation to justify their gestapo approach to “reforming” the U.S. public service. Engaging in mindless firing of government officials, disbanding government agencies and conducting loyalty test within the Justice and security agencies. It is impossible to differentiate facts from fictions. Remember the story about $59 million condoms in Gaza!!

    READ THIS: FACT SHEET: U.S. Efforts to Assist the Nigerian Government in its Fight against Boko Haram

    President Trump just a few days ago blamed President Biden for instigating the Putin invasion of Ukraine when everyone knows that Putin has had his eye on Ukraine for years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded and took over Cremea without provocation during Obama regime. Obama made a strategic mistake by doing absolutely nothing about it other than imposing ineffectual sanctions which probably emboldened him to invade.

    We all need to take a deep breath and treat with more than a grain of salt anything coming from the MAGA crowd which believes in flooding the zone with disinformation and outright falsehoods. They will do or say anything to justify the destruction of what they perceive as the disloyal woke deep-state. Otherwise, why would a Republican congressman openly declare that the U.S. government sponsored ISIS, Alkeida (two sworn enemies of the U.S.) and Boko Haram. One would have expected such a statement from the likes of Bonnie Sander and the ultra liberal Ocasio not from a conservative pro-national security Republican congressman from Pennsylvania. This is turning politics over its head. It makes absolutely no sense just like what’s happening in the U.S. is mind-numbingly nonsensical. You have the U.S. government trusting Putin over its long term allies in Europe. The U.S. VP openly castigated European governments in Munich and openly supported an ultra-right, fringe Nazis political party in Germany as it prepares for an election. Totalitarian Orban of Hungary is a darling of Washington DC. Elon Musk is openly campaigning and offering financial support for political parties aligned with Nazis ideology. We are truly in schizophrenic uncharted political territory.

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Scott Perry’s “Africa Lovefest and the Character Assassination of President Barack Obama

    US Congressman: Scott Perry

    Isn’t it curious that both the do-gooder US democrat liberals who are scrambling to save the USAID and the Republican conservatives who are hell bent on destroying it are both using their gullible whipping boy Africa to make their case? The democrat liberals, many of who simply play to the gallery to hide their racist condescending disdain for Africa are storming the USAID HQ claiming that without the USAID all African children would starve to death and our contagious Eboma will jump over the Atlantic and devastate their American Homeland. The conservative Scott Perry and his White Supremacist Apartheid South African Elon Musk argue that they are trying to demolish USAID to safe Africa from Obama and Biden’s USAID which is the sponsor and financial backbone of Boko Haram.

    Yet rather than been outraged by this constant negative narrative and weaponizing Africa poverty by the West to push their theory of the racial inferiority of Africans, we are falling one another to push this same negative narrative.

    What is so demoralizing as an African is that African elites and so called intellectuals are playing true to type to the Whiteman’s characterization of us as gullible people who are driven by their emotion rather than their intellect. That is what is so frustrating with how African intellectuals have fallen head of heel spreading the disinformation by Scott Perry that Obama and Biden were sponsors of Boko Haram.

    Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Who could have imagined in a million years that a Republican for that matter would be the one “spilling the beans” about how the U.S supposedly sponsors terrorism all over the world. Has anyone wondered why this new “activist” in defense of Nigeria. Scott Perry just selectively and conveniently decides to expose the evil that the USAID does just as Elon Musk was driving his bulldozer over the USAID and it just happens that it was during Barrack Obama and Biden presidency that the USAID was sponsoring Boko Haram. What happened during the transition from Obama to Trump before Biden took over. Apparently, Trump the lover of Africa and her shit-hole countries stopped the funding of Boko Haram and Biden continued from where his former boss, Obama stopped.

    Is that logically? But in the post-truth era where confirmation bias is king people no longer critically analyze facts before running to town with disinformation, propaganda and fake news.

    That exactly is the reason Congressman Scott Scott Perry, could get away with accusing the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, of funding terrorist organisations, including Boko Haram. Just like Trump just blamed Biden for instigating the Russian invasion of Ukraine when in fact Russia took over Cremea way back in 2014. Truth does not matter anymore if you can flood the social media airwave with falsehood, fake news, half truths, and disinformation.

    The Blackman capacity for self hate is mind-numbing. The Nigerian social media has been overtaken with the caricaturitization and character assassination of the Barrack Obama the historic first Black US president.

    Who did this to us?

    Adewale Alonge, PhD, is Founder & President, Africa Diaspora Partnership for Empowerment and Development. www.adped.org

  • INEC in America’s November election (1)

    INEC in America’s November election (1)

    “America has many contradictions in spite of its claim to exceptionalism.“

    THERE will be a significant election this year in a significant country which prides itself as the greatest democracy on earth. That country, a super power, claims that the election will be consequential, and will have ramifications for its citizens, and the whole world. For about two centuries this country has held this poll on the first Saturday in November in the election year. For this year, that date falls on November 5. The election was initially slated to be a fierce battle between two old men, one in his late 70s, and the other in his early 80s. It was supposed to be a rematch, sort of, because the duo had battled each other four years ago with the older prevailing. You already know because that country is the United States of America where the then incumbent president, Donald Trump, was defeated in 2020, and his successor, Joe Biden, was defeated from seeking a second term by a disastrous presidential debate outing on June 27. Biden came under intense pressure from his party people, and had to ‘pass the torch’ in July to his vice president Kamala Harris who is younger and more energetic.

    America has many contradictions in spite of its claim to exceptionalism. There’s is no record that it has been governed by any other means except through the ballot box, at least not in the last 200 years. It lays claim to democracy but it fails to meet the key ingredient of rule by the majority of its citizens voting in an election. Certainly, not for the election of its president. The classical definition of democracy is government of the people by the people for the people. In many climes, it is also governance by representatives who had been elected by a majority of voters during any election. Not so in the United States. In 2016, Hillary Clinton, candidate of the Democratic Party lost the presidential election in spite of winning three million more popular votes of the electorate. His rival, Donald Trump, of the Republican Party with an inferior popular votes tally was returned as the winner. The unique but apparently an undemocratic (to many outsiders) Electoral College gave victory to Trump. The candidates and the parties in that contest knew the rule and so could not complain.

    “The constitution in its 12th Amendment recognised ‘electors’. And the ‘electors’ for each of the 50 states have been determined, and the number of ‘electors’ for each state may be reflective but not necessarily proportional to the population of the state. Any candidate who secures a minimum of 270 Electoral College votes wins the presidency irrespective of the outcome of the popular votes.“

    The name, Electoral College, which determines who is elected as the US president is not in that country’s constitution. History has it that the founding fathers of the country inserted this mode of electing a president as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress (parliament), which used to be the practice, and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Until the 1960s not many people were qualified to vote in elections. There was no universal suffrage. The constitution in its 12th Amendment recognised ‘electors’. And the ‘electors’ for each of the 50 states have been determined, and the number of ‘electors’ for each state may be reflective but not necessarily proportional to the population of the state. Any candidate who secures a minimum of 270 Electoral College votes wins the presidency irrespective of the outcome of the popular votes.

    The Electoral College has been a vexatious subject in American politics for centuries. And that explains why surveys showed that in the past 200 years more than 700 proposals had been introduced in Congress to either reform or eliminate the Electoral College. Probably, to underline its undemocratic nature, it has been recorded that there have been more proposals for constitutional amendments on changing the ‘electors’ method for determining the winner of the American presidency than on any other subject.

    Apart from politicians, America’s body of lawyers, the American Bar Association, has had cause to criticise the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous”, and its polling showed that 69% of lawyers favoured abolishing it in 1987. In addition, public opinion polls showed that Americans favoured abolishing it by majorities of 58% in 1967; 81% in 1968; and 75% in 1981. The conventional wisdom is that any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular votes nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees as implicated in the presidential election results of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.

    It has been suggested that the Electoral College was contrived by the founders of the US to stem the possible agitations for separation from the Union by less populated states who may feel cheated and excluded in producing the president of the country. In effect, the Electoral College was informed by the need for the accommodation of all segments of the society. However, some scholars argued that the ‘electors’ scheme was indeed the handiwork of a segment of the elite among the founding fathers who did not want to totally relinquish the election of the president to the masses.

    On November 5, two candidates  Harris (Democrat), and Trump (Republican ) will lock horns for who occupies the American presidency which is generally regarded as the most powerful office in the world. Third party candidates are usually inconsequential since none has won the office ever. Harris appears to have an edge in the race at this time but election watchers reckon that in reality, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck. The proposition for the moment is that any of Harris or Trump can win the election. And this uncertainty is down to the complexities of the Electoral College. In 2016, polls and pundits put Hillary Clinton ahead by several miles. It was expected to be a coronation of the former American first lady (she was the wife of former President Bill Clinton), senator and secretary of state. Alas, it was not. Trump, who reportedly had given up that fateful election night in 2016 in the wake of exit polls that overwhelmingly pointed to Hillary’s win, won through the Electoral College.

    That scenario may not play out the same way this November. Nobody has yet said that November 5 will be a coronation for either of the candidates. This is so because the division in American politics is deep. It has been so since the advent of Trump (descending from the golden escalator) in presidential politics in 2015. The division became deeper when Trump was declared as the loser of the 2020 election. He has refused to concede defeat. He has failed to accept that he lost. He still insists even less than one month to the next election that the election in 2020 was procured by fraud for Biden. It does not matter that he was the incumbent at the time.

    “…Next week we’ll discuss how Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC’s) notorious inconclusive elections could play out in the November election in the US. The possibility of another round of violently contested election outcome is visible in the horizon with local election bodies planning to delay certification of results so as to provide ample time for the loser to sow doubts on the validity of the polls.”

    A lot has happened in the years between the 2020 presidential election and this year’s. There was a violent attack on January 6, 2021, ostensibly to stop the certification of the election results by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Those who stormed the Capitol Hill, the location of the parliament, chanted that they would hang the then vice president, Mike Pence. They even prepared a noose in the vicinity of Congress for Pence. And were heard chanting ‘hang Mike Pence’. By the way, Pence was on the losing ticket but he was constitutionally mandated to preside over the certification of the results of the election as the president of the senate. He rejected pressure from a section of his party to overthrow the election result. Trump, who was twice impeached by the House of Representatives and twice not convicted by the senate, reportedly watched the hours of the attack on the Capitol from the White House, and allegedly failed to lift a finger even when the life of his vice president was in danger. When he was told about the danger faced by Pence and the urgent need for him to act, he allegedly retorted, “so what?”

    In the intervening years also, former president Trump had been indicted in multiple jurisdictions, tried in two cases and convicted in at least two courts of law. He was convicted for sexual assault, and for business fraud. Trump and his supporters still rail that his indictments and convictions were politically motivated, and brazen attempts to interfere with the November presidential election. But in the eyes of the law, and at least until the convictions are upturned by superior courts, Trump remains a felon. In some other democracies a convict or felon would not be allowed to be on the ballot. But apparently not in the United States. So, he could be a felon and president of the most powerful country in the world at the same time. That could just be part of the exceptionalism of America.

    Next week we’ll discuss how Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC’s) notorious inconclusive elections could play out in the November election in the US. The possibility of another round of violently contested election outcome is visible in the horizon with local election bodies planning to delay certification of results so as to provide ample time for the loser to sow doubts on the validity of the polls. We will also examine a ‘democratic’ setting where a single senator could hold the whole nation to ransom, a court system where judgments are informed not by the letters and spirit of the law but by the ideological leanings of the judges, and who appointed them, and a 21st century supposed beacon of democracy governed by a constitution written in the 18th century, some of which words were laid out in unclear words and fractured sentences.

  • Trump unveils new cryptocurrency platform 

    Trump unveils new cryptocurrency platform 

    Notorious for failed startups and suing for bankruptcy, former US president, Donald Trump along with his sons and entrepreneurs late Monday launched a cryptocurrency platform but provided few details.
    Little was revealed about the Trump family crypto project during a two-hour online presentation other than an offer to let people buy digital “tokens” giving them a vote in platform decisions.
    The event went ahead as planned despite an apparent assassination attempt against Trump on Sunday at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida.
    World Liberty Financial intends to offer services based on so-called decentralized finance, a mechanism that eliminates the need for an intermediary such as a bank to carry out transactions with a third party, the politics-laced discussion indicated.
    Decentralized finance, or DeFi, is based on so-called blockchain technology, which keeps a theoretically open but tamper-proof record of transactions.
    World Liberty Financial will enable users to lend or borrow cryptocurrencies to or from one another, a service already offered by many platforms, one of the best-known of which is Aave.
    The former president’s son Donald Trump Jr. touted this as “the start of a financial revolution,” during a session streamed on X, formerly Twitter.
    Zachary Folkman and Chase Herro, the linchpins of the project and established cryptocurrency entrepreneurs, said the platform would primarily use “stablecoins”, which are backed by a traditional currency, most often the dollar.
    Trump’s vicinity at golf course
    As a result, they are free from the sometimes brutal fluctuations experienced by digital currencies untethered to real-world money.
    World Liberty Financial wants to attract the masses to cryptocurrencies, creating a platform easily accessible to people, Folkman said.
    Project leaders said they would sell tokens that give owners the right to take part in the governance of the platform, with 63 per cent of them offered to the public, 20 per cent going to the founding team and the rest set aside as rewards for users.
    No timetable for the project was disclosed.
    During his presidency Trump referred to cryptocurrencies as a scam, but has since radically changed his position, presenting himself as a “pro-bitcoin president” if elected in November.
    In so doing, he is standing in opposition to the Biden administration, which is seen as a proponent of regulating the sector.
  • Kamala Harris trumps Donald Trump in first presidential debate

    Kamala Harris trumps Donald Trump in first presidential debate

    The much anticipated and most contentious US Presidential debate took place in the early hours of Tuesday morning, Nigerian time, as televised live on the Cable News Network (CNN).
    Living up to its hype, the debate was a fiery fireworks of some sort where the incumbent Vice President, Kamala Harris, who is the Democrat Presidential ticket bearer, shone like an incandescent firework in a dark Christmas night.

    Expected to be a critical decider that would enable many electorates across a spectrum of demographics to chose their candidate, the presidential debate did the job by sieving the chaff from the grains.

    From the beginning when the Vice president stormed into the venue and went straight to stretch out her hands to shake and introduce herself to the former president, to when she reminded him that she is Kamala Harris, not President Joe Biden,  the US Vice President out-debated former President Donald Trump.
    Even in terms of their body language, Trump looked curmudgeonly and predatory most times while Harris appeared presidential, comported, caring and fearless like a commander in chief.

    On all occasions, Harris successfully baited Trump in this contentious first debate and he failed on all counts as she goes on to flat him out completely by defining for his lies, racism, narcissism  and emotional instability. For instance, it was revealed by the fact checker that D9nald Trump lied 33 times during the debate, compared with a single falsehood by his opponent.

    Her pedigree as a successful prosecutor was deftly deployed to portray him as a felon  for all his lying and bullying.

    In terms of specific plans, she laid out her plans on the economy, homeland security, international relations diplomacy and race relations.

    And the endorsements started pouring in…

    As soon as the debates ended, reports filtered on to break the news about a mega endorsement by pop star, Taylor Swift.
    Posting on her Instagram, Ms. Taylor Swift,  posted a picture of herself holding a cat denounce JD Vance, Trump’s running mate who called Kamala Harris a childless cat.