The Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Policy Communications, Daniel Bwala, has hinted at the possibility of President Tinubu holding talks with President Trump on the allegation of genocide against Christians, with a view to clarifying any differences in the perspective on whether terror attacks in Nigeria are religiously targeted or indiscriminately affect citizens of all faiths. That is one of the ways to proceed on this matter, and we expect that the dialogue will help douse tension.
   
However, most importantly, the Federal Government should initiate actions that can convince the U.S. that Nigeria is ready to address the identified violations that led to its designation as a country of particular concern. President Tinubu should openly, if possible in a nationwide broadcast, declare Boko Haram and the other terror groups operating in Nigeria as enemies of the country and launch a new, sincere and potent military operation to crush them. This should be done in a way that no one, including President Trump of the United States, will be left in doubt as per the political will, sincerity, and commitment of the Nigerian leadership to, more than ever before, respect and uphold the liberties of the people, irrespective of their religion, in a democratic state that Nigeria claims to be. This may change the narrative.
  
The unfortunate and dangerous sympathy terrorists, their sponsors and backers have allegedly been enjoying from some government security agencies, and the distressing campaign by some influential Nigerians calling for amnesty and reintegration of the hardened criminals into the society, while the families of victims of their atrocities are languishing in perpetual trauma, must stop. There must be justice for the wronged whose blood is wailing ceaselessly for it.
   
President Tinubu has a responsibility to prove to the world that he is in control of the government in Nigeria and has not in any way ceded that power to anyone else, no matter the position and faith. He must convince Nigerians and the rest of the world that there is only one centre of authority in the governance of Nigeria. Tinubu should openly declare that henceforth, anybody whose activity is, directly or indirectly, antithetical to ridding Nigeria of these terrible criminals, constitutes himself or herself an enemy of the country and should be crushed with the devils tormenting Nigeria.
   
To many Nigerians, especially the relatives of the victims of terrorists’ attacks, it is a welcome development that the unprecedented and callous disregard for human life in Nigeria has caught the attention and sympathy of the U.S., which cannot imagine the magnitude of bloodshed, how innocent people are freely slaughtered like chickens as if there is no government in place. They look forward to the development bringing respite, as insecurity has become seemingly intractable in Nigeria. But there are those castigating the U.S., claiming that the warning amounts to illegal interference in the affairs of Nigeria. To them, what matters in the unfolding faceoff is the defence of Nigeria’s sovereignty.  From their reaction, they seem not convinced that the genocide in Nigeria is sufficient to elicit the unfolding action of the U.S. They accused the American government, particularly President Trump, of having a hidden agenda with the declaration of Nigeria as a country of particular concern.
   
But what is known to underlie U.S. intervention in heinous crimes anywhere in the world is its principle of atrocity prevention, which combines national interest with moral obligation to act. Really, the U.S. sees prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities as its core national security interest, not just a humanitarian issue, because of its belief that atrocities can destabilise regions, trigger refugee crises and create openings for violent extremism. To an extent, the policy aligns with the United Nations Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, which asserts that it is a crucial task of states to protect their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Where the states fail to do this, the international community can collectively use peaceful means to assist, and if those fail, to take decisive collective action through the UN Security Council. But there have been cases in which the U.S. has acted even when the UN Security Council was not involved.
 
We support the position of the Nigerian government that we have a problem which has manifested in killings all over the country. And we have not been able to successfully tackle the security challenge. What started in Borno State in 2009 has become a formidable existential threat to the country. The atrocities are not abating and the government has not been able to successfully deal with the menace, which has graduated to an international problem with some countries, including China, now speaking out in defence of Nigeria. We really need help, which must be in collaboration with the helper. But the U.S. intervention is in the killing of Christians in the north. The Federal Government should be mindful of the possible destruction that may come with the U.S. military action against the terrorists and plan against other problems that it can cause for other regions.
 
Nigeria should urgently cleanse its military of saboteurs of efforts to end the scourge of terrorism. It is not that Nigeria does not have the resources or strength to combat the problem, but the people, particularly the leaders, are not united against it, and the military high command is allegedly divided on ideological grounds, with a camp in sympathy with the criminal elements. It was gathered that the sabotage suffered by the efforts of some American troops to rescue the Chibok girls under former President Goodluck Jonathan could be the reason the U.S. government has not mentioned collaboration with the Nigerian government in its plan against Jihadists. Any military personnel found to be working against Nigeria winning the war against terrorists should be declared terrorists and dealt with.
 
We welcome the move by President Tinubu to appoint ambassadors to represent Nigeria in foreign countries. Unfortunately, this is coming after the threat by the U.S. Probably, if this had been done earlier and there was a Nigerian ambassador in Washington, he or she would have been able to douse the fire and present an alternative narrative about the reality in Nigeria as regards killings by Islamic Jihadists.
   
The time and resources being used by the Nigerian government to defend the allegation of genocide should be diverted to giving effect to the declaration by the 1999 Constitution that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. The CPC status that Nigeria has just earned should be seen as part of the consequences of the leadership’s poor delivery in this regard.
Concluded.