Globally, cascading crisis is informing strategic realignments, alliance recalibrations, re-setting of geopolitical priorities and new military pacts amongst sovereign states. In Niger, the military junta, following the coup d’etat of July 26, 2023 expelled approximately 1,000 U.S. forces and their subsequent replacement with Russian forces, which became evident from May 2, 2024.

Burkina Faso, expelled French forces in March 2023, and their subsequent replacement with Russia’s Wagner Group, the paramilitary outfit advancing Russian interests extra-territorially.

Also, Mali expelled French troops in August 2022 amidst both countries’ diplomatic rows following successive military coups. Likewise, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which effective February 24, 2022, has effectively impelled the former to forge new military partnerships with China, Iran and North Korea.

Ukraine on the other, is joined-at-the hip with NATO/Western allies as the latter duo supplies the country with over $379 billion worth of sophisticated military equipment/technical assistance to prosecute its defence against Russian forces.

Upon that anchor, this essay addresses the hypothetical proposition of the United States citing a military base in Nigeria. The theory is neither derived from extra-sensory perception nor magic. Rather, it emanates from Nigeria’s Northern intelligentsia, which claimed in a letter addressed to President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly on May 3, 2024, that the United States (and France!) were lobbying Nigeria to cite military installations in the country.

That hypothesis was upended by the emerging antithesis in the Federal Government’s assertion, per Information Minister, Mohammed Idris, on May 6, 2024, that Nigeria has no plans for hosting either a U.S. nor any foreign military base in the country. Nevertheless, beyond the politics of hosting foreign bases in Nigeria, the contestable and reasoned arguments on either side of the discourse, justifies a critical review.

Proponents make three important arguments. First, that Nigeria has unsuccessfully prosecuted a war against rampant ethno-religious terrorism, extreme criminality and insecurity for over a decade; coupled with the country’s failure to comprehensively defeat Boko Haram, ISWAP and other terrorist groups. Combined, these factors as the argument goes, is a basis for having a U.S. military base in the country, in the expectation that external military assistance will either curb or eliminate terrorism.

Second, the presence of a United States military base in Nigeria will enhance the latter’s defence capabilities, through experiential learning, intelligence gathering and exploitation; especially in kinetic operations, knowledge-transfer and technical assistance.

Third is the argument that the era of strategic neutrality is over; in that, no serious country can, in this day and age, can afford to sit-on-the fence relative to the dynamic complexities of global affairs.

In short, that non-alignment in global affairs is a strategic failure. This proposition is bolstered by Egypt, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are just some examples of countries which host U.S. military bases.

The proponents’ arguments are further reinforced by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which established that as at December 31, 2020, 350, 000 persons had been killed in Nigeria due to terrorism! Furthermore, the UNDP asserts that if terrorism and insecurity persists in Nigeria until 2030, over 1.1 million may die, compounded by widespread destruction and displacement.

And according to SBM Intelligence, through July 2022 and June 2023, 3,620 persons were kidnapped in 582 incidents with approximately N5 billion or $3.9 million paid in ransom; and since 2019, 15,398 terrorism-related kidnappings and 735 mass (involving five or more persons) abductions have taken place in Nigeria. So, for how long can any serious society develop, against this vituperative backdrop?

On the flip-side, six counter-arguments advanced by opponents of foreign military bases in Nigeria are no less compelling. First, they contend that Nigeria gained its independence over 64 years ago and, notwithstanding its ginormous security challenges, nation-building demands effective leadership and sacrifices.

In relative terms, it is argued that Nigeria’s nation-building and statecraft are dynamically developing as contrasted with those of advanced democracies like the U.S., UK and France, which are more or less fully formed, and have been for centuries. Therefore, Nigeria, post-independence, must forge, own and execute its own strategy for defeating terrorism and insecurity.

Second, is the argument that citing foreign bases in Nigeria upends national sovereignty, in that the primary allegiance of foreign forces will always be to their home countries and never to Nigeria! Accordingly, foreign forces possess inherently conflicted strategic objectives and, in perspective, offer sub-optimal geostrategic value to Nigeria.

Third, is the argument that the presence of U.S. and French military bases in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, neither eliminated nor curbed terrorism in those countries. The precedential added value of any foreign base in Nigeria is therefore unproven.
Fourth, Nigeria has operated a “non-alignment” foreign policy for several decades. This simply means that the country is neither beholden to pro-American, NATO and Western interests, nor to pro-Russian, Chinese, North Korean or other “counterbalancing” interests; and will only do what is perceived to be in Nigeria’s best interests: not that of any super-power bloc!

To put this in a sharper foreign policy context, the question is: why should Nigeria host a U.S. and/or French military base when Russian troops are already on Nigeria’s Nigerien northern doorstep and, in the process, imperil relations with Russia, which is also Nigeria’s economic and military partner? The inference is that citing foreign bases in Nigeria is political naivete per excellence!

Fifth, opponents contend that the subsistence of a U.S. base in Nigeria will redirect the country’s scarce resources away from frontline education, environmental, healthcare, infrastructural and national security priorities, towards safeguarding any such foreign base on Nigerian territory; which is considered unacceptable given the latter’s crippling financial burdens.

Finally, is the postulation that Nigeria already has several bilateral, multilateral and regional military compacts with the U.S. These include ECOWAS, the Multinational Joint task Force (MNJTF), the Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS, ditto the African Union, aimed at border security and maritime defence; counter-terrorism strategies against Boko Haram, ISWAP etc. Together, these establish the geostrategic illogic of citing a physical U.S. or any foreign military base in Nigeria.

Besides, the United States has over $590 million in extant defence contracts with Nigeria pursuant to the Foreign Military Sales initiative. The U.S. also facilitates military training for Nigeria’s Armed Forces notably in Air-to-Ground Integration (AGI) to mitigate civilian casualties in kinetic operations. In addition to Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, the U.S. delivered 12 AH-1Z Attack Helicopters to Nigeria worth circa $1 billion in 2023 to enable the country effectively combat terrorism and insecurity.

Closing, and to synthesise the foregoing arguments and counter-arguments, interdependencies and the commonality of interests in tackling global terrorism invokes the obligation on the United States, France and other super powers to cooperate in fighting the scourge of terrorism and insecurity in Nigeria, and beyond.

However, only Nigerians can sustainably resolve the existential security and terrorist threats which the country faces. Foreigners can only do so much and whatever they do will, first and foremost, be in their own, strategic national interests, irrespective of whether or not they have military bases in Nigeria.

The notion that the U.S., France or any other powerful country will commit troops to fight terrorism in Nigerian is illusory. It will not happen any time soon and the evidence is not far-fetched.

If U.S. troops have not committed troops in the extant Israeli/Palestinian war and the Russia/Ukraine conflict to support their Israeli and Ukrainian allies, why would they commit troops in Nigeria to fight insecurity and terrorism?

Nevertheless, 21st Century global geopolitical vicissitudes, rationally demands that Nigeria’s foreign policy, which has been anchored for so long on the “non-alignment” philosophy, be critically and intelligently reviewed.

Irrespective of ideological slants, the United States economic and military predominance, and political influence, globally, will remain for decades to come. Therefore, whilst the preservation of Nigeria’s national interests and sovereignty are theoretically sacrosanct, realpolitik, demands that the country innovatively squares the circle of closer links with the United States without sacrificing collaboration with other global power blocs.

This will not be easy, but surely critical and imaginative thinking, whilst identifying and tackling key hypothetical and practical scenarios which could emerge over the short, medium and long term, is what’s expected at the uppermost echelons of foreign policy; national security; and strategic defence committees of the National Assembly.

The implication is that Nigeria can begin to project its soft power with the right foreign policy choices, which in turn resonates, with the postulations of Harvard Professor Joseph Nye, who characterises the term as the allure of a nation’s ideals and policies.
Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria, and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development.