Dividing Nigeria to Protect Christians

Recently I've heard rumblings from within the Christian community that US foreign policy should support (or foster) the break-up (or division) of Nigeria in order to protect the persecuted Christians that live there. They want a new state carved out for the Christian community to protect them from the various Islamic threats.

Aside from the problematic issues associated with so-called Christian statecraft and the crusader-ethos of waging war in order to advance the Kingdom (defined in terms of temporal political and cultural boundaries), the argument not only fails on practical levels but is in fact naive and even dangerous.

Such advocacy fails to take into account the sources of the tensions in Nigeria – the fact that over 200 million people are crammed into an area the size of California, Oregon, and Washington. And the population is growing rapidly. Or look at it another way – Nigeria is the size of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Delaware. It's a big country to be sure. The US combined population for these Eastern states is about 90 million. Imagine if 230 million were living in the same area and that's Nigeria. And large swathes of land are not suitable for agriculture or easily lived on. And again, the population is growing – projected to be somewhere near 400 million by 2050 – that's bigger than the entire US population at present.

There are huge strains on resources and land availability. There are battles taking place between agricultural and pastoral peoples – exacerbated by religious differences.

The refugee crisis is only beginning – we haven't seen anything yet. There are those in Europe who understand this and in light of it advocate for Western intervention. This is meant to combat the forces of Islamism on the one hand (something of a fig leaf argument) but primarily it's a mechanism for installing collaborator governments that will help to control this mass exodus. The whole Frontex argument is marketed as a European naval force meant to protect immigrants from being exploited by people smugglers. This is farcical and about as convincing as US Republicans pretending to care about smuggled people coming from Latin America. The purpose is to contain these streams of refugees and immigrants and contain them in Africa. This is why Brussels and frontline states like Italy and Spain are eager to forge agreements with the nations of the North African littoral and why the UK is trying to create dumping grounds in places like Rwanda where these refugees can be shuttled and blocked from access to Europe. Once in Rwanda they are 'safe' and can no longer seek asylum. Paul Kagame's record of corruption is well established and obviously he will be looking for not only compensation but geopolitical favours – no doubt with designs on the Eastern Congo looming on the horizon.

Additionally those that argue for Nigerian Partition fail to understand the basis of US foreign policy vis-à-vis Africa, which has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. Washington is already deeply involved as Nigeria is a hub for the petroleum trade and US forces are already operating in Nigeria and in neighbouring countries. On the one hand the justification for this is to fight Islamic insurgencies like Boko Haram, but on another level this is about oil and other resources. And along the way the US is selling billions of dollars of military equipment to Nigeria and thus binding its military and its policy to Washington's interests. In recent years Washington has limited its direct military ties with Nigeria – though there is still some training and operations taking place. The US has instead focused on the bordering nations for basing troops and it occasionally launches strikes into Nigerian territory – areas outside the control of the national government. Nigeria is so broken the US is reticent to sink too many roots – preferring to operate on the periphery, and make money of course.

There is a new Scramble for Africa taking place right now as the great powers are jockeying for position – China and the US are the primary contenders (and adversaries) and yet other nations like France, Russia, and the UK are also involved.

The discussions over partition seem nigh unto oblivious about this reality and also there is very little talk about Nigeria's previous chapter of civil war (1967-1970) and the secessionist state of Biafra. Over two million died as a result of that war. Additionally Nigeria has long been plagued by political problems with the Fulani – one of the groups that is associated with persecuting Christians. The Fulani problem is not recent or simply the result of Islamic radicalism. As I've suggested the issue is more complicated than simply boiling it down to a question of religion. The strains of population, resources, and land are the primary drivers in this conflict – though you'll never hear this from American Evangelical commentators.

And these same advocates seem ignorant of the fact that there are at present already three wars taking place in Nigeria – the battles and insurgencies in the Delta region which touch on the question of oil and its economic effects. Then there are the battles with the Fulani and the campaign against Boko Haram and the other Islamist groups – which already involve the US.

Such discussions of partition are rooted in ignorance and are potentially dangerous. Time and again they fail to address the real pressing issues – to which there are no easy solutions. But the Americo-centric and often Right-wing way of framing these questions is not helpful and should they gain traction and result in political and policy action – look out. History demonstrates that such misguided and self-deluded thinking leads to wars – and massive death tolls. Nigeria is in a crisis, of that there can be doubt. But advocating for more war and geopolitical manipulation – which will probably lead to generations of conflict is not the answer. And when couched in 'Christian' terms and as an expression of 'Christian' policy and advocacy – actual Christians must protest.

And it's not just Nigeria. There are similar looming problems on a massive scale that few seem to realize – or are even willing to entertain. We cannot arrest these trends, in many respects the die is already cast. But we must be thinking about what to do – the answers when placed within a framework of national and economic interest will simply cloud judgment. In other words we Christians need to think as Christians – not Americans. America should not be the focus of our affections or allegiance. If so, then we fall into syncretistic or divided obligation and idolatry and we betray the brethren in places like Nigeria. But these discussions are not on the table. The talk is of power and war and corrupt Church leaders will (in alliance with political forces happy to use them) sell these lies to their congregations and audiences. We've seen it before. We're seeing it right now.