By Abiodun Oluwadare
In recent weeks, public discourse in Nigeria has been animated by reports and speculation surrounding alleged United States military actions in the country’s northwest, reportedly based on an understanding between Washington and Abuja. Beyond the initial excitement or alarm, such claims have generated, the more important question is not whether foreign firepower was deployed, but what the geopolitical and economic implications of deepened U.S.–Nigeria security cooperation would mean for Nigeria’s long-term sovereignty, regional standing, and internal security architecture.
History suggests that no major power, least of all the United States, engages in security partnerships without strategic calculation. International relations are not governed by charity, sentiment, or goodwill alone; they are shaped by interests, leverage, and long-term advantage. Any serious analysis of a potential U.S.–Nigeria security arrangement must therefore move beyond surface narratives and interrogate what may lie beneath the formal language of “partnership,” “assistance,” or “counterterrorism cooperation.”
Power, security and the logic of interests
The United States is the most powerful military actor in the international system, but it is also one of the most interest-driven. Its security engagements abroad are rarely pro bono. They are typically embedded in wider strategic objectives, access, influence, intelligence, economic leverage, or geopolitical positioning.
Nigeria, as Africa’s most populous country and one of its largest economies, occupies a strategic location in the Gulf of Guinea and West Africa. It sits at the crossroads of regional security challenges: terrorism in the Sahel, maritime insecurity in the Atlantic, energy politics, and great-power competition increasingly playing out across Africa. From Washington’s perspective, Nigeria is not merely a counterterrorism partner; it is a strategic node.
This does not automatically make cooperation harmful. States routinely partner for mutual benefit. The danger arises when asymmetries of power allow one party to shape outcomes disproportionately, often in ways that only become visible over time.
Security assistance and the price of dependency
One of the central risks of relying heavily on external military assistance is the gradual erosion of strategic autonomy. When foreign intelligence, logistics, training, or operational capabilities become deeply embedded in a country’s security system, decision-making can subtly shift. What begins as assistance can evolve into dependence.
Nigeria’s security challenges, terrorism, banditry, separatist agitations, and organised crimes are real and severe. Yet history shows that external military solutions rarely resolve fundamentally political and socio-economic problems. Where foreign powers dominate security responses, local institutions often weaken rather than strengthen.
The architecture of Nigeria’s security sector must therefore be interrogated: would deeper U.S. involvement enhance indigenous capacity, or would it entrench a model where critical intelligence, surveillance, and strike capabilities remain externally controlled? The long-term consequences of the latter would be profound.
Lessons from history: Selective engagement and strategic withdrawal
The global record of U.S. engagement offers sobering lessons. History offers instructive parallels. The United States has repeatedly demonstrated that its commitment to crises abroad is conditional, selective, and interest-based. This pattern reflects a broader strategic ethos: the U.S. engages where interests are clear and costs predictable, and retreats where outcomes are uncertain or public support wanes. The Somali example, where strategic gains remain elusive despite years of involvement, illustrates the limits of a militarised model unsupported by robust political and development frameworks. It serves as a cautionary tale for countries like Nigeria, where public expectations may outstrip diplomatic realities.
In Liberia, despite historical ties, the U.S. response to the early stages of political collapse was hesitant, allowing the crisis to spiral into prolonged civil war before limited intervention occurred. In southern Africa, U.S. policy during the Angolan War of Independence and the apartheid era was shaped less by humanitarian considerations than by Cold War calculations. Support, opposition, or indifference shifted as global strategic priorities changed.
These precedents underline a critical reality: alliances are not guarantees. When interests diverge, even long-standing relationships can be recalibrated or abandoned. Nigeria must therefore ask not only what assistance it might receive today, but what vulnerabilities it might inherit tomorrow.
Geopolitics in an age of global competition
Across West Africa, the U.S.–Nigeria security dialogue has centred on terrorism and extremist violence. Washington frames its assistance as intelligence sharing, precision strikes, and capacity building within the parameters of respect for Nigerian sovereignty. Nigeria’s Foreign Ministry has emphasised mutual commitments to regional stability, human rights, and the strengthening of domestic security institutions.
Yet strategic partnerships are rarely limited to the language of cooperation. They are embedded in the geopolitical contest for influence among great powers, particularly in regions rich with natural resources, growing markets, and strategic corridors. Nigeria sits squarely in this context, as Africa’s most populous state, a leading oil exporter, and a key player in regional economic integration. Its appeal to global powers is therefore not abstract; it is rooted in strategic calculations that go far beyond counterterrorism.
Therefore, any U.S.–Nigeria security arrangement must also be understood within the context of intensifying global competition. Africa is no longer a peripheral theatre; it is a contested space where the United States, China, Russia, and other powers pursue influence through infrastructure, arms sales, security cooperation, and diplomacy.
A closer military alignment with Washington may affect Nigeria’s relations with other global actors. Strategic non-alignment, long a pillar of Nigeria’s foreign policy tradition, could be strained. Economic partnerships, defence procurement options, and diplomatic flexibility may narrow as security ties deepen.
Geopolitics is rarely zero-sum in theory, but it often becomes so in practice when security commitments harden into expectations of loyalty.
The political economy of security
Security partnerships are never purely military; they are also economic. Defence cooperation often comes with contracts, procurement obligations, training packages, and technological dependencies. Arms purchases, maintenance agreements, and intelligence-sharing arrangements can lock countries into long-term financial commitments.
For Nigeria, already grappling with fiscal pressures, unemployment, and development deficits, the question is whether external security arrangements generate net national value. Do they stimulate domestic defence industries, strengthen institutions, and transfer skills? Or do they primarily benefit foreign contractors and external suppliers?
To be continued tomorrow.
Oluwadare is Professor of Political Science, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna.
In this article