Tag: Osaghae

  • Osaghae, Soremekun, Ogunsanwo, others hail Nigeria, U.S. military attacks on Islamic militants in northwest 

    Osaghae, Soremekun, Ogunsanwo, others hail Nigeria, U.S. military attacks on Islamic militants in northwest 

    The director-general of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Prof. Eghosa Osaghae, former Vice Chancellor, Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, Prof.  Kayode Soremekun and former Nigerian High Commissioner to Botswana and former Nigerian Ambassador to Belgium Prof. Alaba Ogunsanwo, have hailed the Federal Government and United States military operations against Islamic jihadists in the North West.

    President Donald Trump had stated that he ordered the air strikes against ISIL fighters in northwest Nigeria, claiming that the armed group had “‌targeted and viciously” killed “primarily, innocent Christians, at ⁠levels not seen for many years, and even centuries!”

    But, the Federal Government confirmed the attacks but dismisses Trump’s assertions, saying armed groups target both Muslim and Christian communities in the country.

    Those interviewed by The Nation submitted that Nigeria’s primary concern must remain its national interest. 

    According to them, any cooperation that strengthens the country’s capacity to neutralise groups responsible for killing Nigerians, destabilising communities, and undermining state authority is consistent with that interest.

    Reacting on the attacks, Prof. Osaghae said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had clearly articulated the country’s position on security cooperation, describing it as part of established international collaboration aimed at tackling security threats that endanger not only Nigeria, but global peace and stability.

    The NIIA boss explained that the ministry emphasised that terrorism has evolved beyond isolated, domestic concerns and now carries transnational and global dimensions, making international cooperation both necessary and inevitable. 

    According to him, Nigeria’s engagement with global partners like the U.S. aligned with international conventions and the rule of law, without compromising the nation’s sovereignty.

    He noted that Nigeria has consistently supported global partnerships that advance the safety and interests of its citizens while contributing to international peace and security.

    Responding to concerns about reliance on foreign assistance, he insisted that Nigeria has not abdicated its primary responsibility as a sovereign nation to protect its territory and people. Rather, cooperation with international partners complements Nigeria’s own efforts in addressing terrorism and violent extremism.

    Prof. Osaghae recalled Nigeria’s leadership role in initiatives such as the Multinational Joint Task Force, noting that security threats today are both territorial and transnational, spanning ground and aerial domains. With advances in modern warfare and surveillance technology, no single nation can effectively confront such challenges alone, he submitted.

    Read Also: Trump threatens further strikes if ISIS attack persists

    He also pointed to recent actions, including the declaration of a national emergency on security, as evidence of intensified domestic efforts. 

    “Over the past months, Nigeria has significantly increased its security operations, ensuring that all relevant agencies are fully engaged.

    He added that the current international cooperation forms part of Nigeria’s rapid and robust response to escalating security challenges, reinforcing—not replacing—the country’s commitment to safeguarding its sovereignty and national security.

    Prof. Ogunsanwo, in an interview with The Nation, said from a foreign affairs and diplomatic perspective, Nigeria’s cooperation with the United States on security matters was neither new nor unexpected. 

    According to him, calls for U.S. support in Nigeria’s counter-terrorism efforts predate recent developments and were made openly by Nigerian lawmakers and successive administrations. 

    “Former President Muhammadu Buhari, during his engagements in Washington, consistently urged the United States to maintain a security presence in the region to assist in combating terrorism.

    “While those appeals did not yield immediate action at the time, the current cooperation reflects a convergence of interests between both countries rather than a sudden shift in Nigeria’s foreign policy posture. 

    “The Nigerian government’s position has always been that terrorism is not confined to a single region or state but represents a collective threat requiring coordinated responses. 

    “Recent attention on the North-West, including Sokoto and neighbouring areas, aligns with intelligence assessments that violent extremist activity has intensified there.,” the former diplomat said.

    Prof. Ogunsanwo noted that allegations that elements within government might be complicit in supporting terrorists are not new and have surfaced under previous administrations. 

    “However, such claims remain largely speculative unless backed by credible evidence. The more critical issue is whether current actions are undertaken with the consent and collaboration of the Nigerian government. If they are—and all indications suggest they are—then the matter falls squarely within Nigeria’s sovereign right to seek assistance in protecting its citizens.

    “In terms of foreign policy implications, Nigeria’s primary concern must remain its national interest. Any cooperation that strengthens the country’s capacity to neutralise groups responsible for killing Nigerians, destabilising communities, and undermining state authority is consistent with that interest. 

    “Internationally, such collaboration does not diminish Nigeria’s standing; rather, it reinforces its image as a responsible actor willing to engage partners to address transnational security threats.

    “There is also no basis for external actors to object to such cooperation, except terrorist groups and their sympathisers who stand to lose from increased pressure. These groups do not represent Nigeria’s interests nor its sovereignty.

    “Ultimately, Nigeria’s foreign policy is judged not by abstract notions of prestige but by its effectiveness in safeguarding lives, territory, and stability. If cooperation with the United States advances those objectives, then it is both diplomatically legitimate and strategically sound,” he said.

    In his interview with The Nation, Prof. Soremekun said if Nigerian authorities were consulted before the action, then it was appropriate. According to him, if the operation achieved its objective of neutralising forces considered harmful to Nigeria’s security, then it should be supported.

    He noted, however, that militancy—particularly religious militancy—is a continuous phenomenon. 

    He argued that the federal government must take over by consolidating the gains of such operations. “If the forces are sufficiently neutralised and, in the process, Nigeria succeeds in building its own capacity, then the country will eventually be able to take full control,” he said.

    Prof. Soremekun warned that internal sabotage remains a serious challenge. He stated that, more often than not, the enemy exists within, pointing to individuals inside the system who allegedly supply intelligence and weapons to terrorist groups. 

    He expressed hope that such internal threats would be decisively addressed.

    While acknowledging the role of the United States, he stressed that Nigeria cannot rely on foreign support indefinitely. 

    He questioned the fundamental interest of the U.S. in the operation, noting that such motivations are best understood by policymakers in the U.S. State Department, the Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex.

    He added that Nigeria must also clearly define its own interests, asking whether those interests lie with the Federal Government, the affected state governments, or the local communities where the operations take place.

    According to him, Nigeria must clearly articulate its priorities and ensure that its national interests—and those of its people—are adequately protected.

  • Okonjo-Iweala, Ogunsanwo, Osaghae, others react to U.S. president’s executive orders

    Okonjo-Iweala, Ogunsanwo, Osaghae, others react to U.S. president’s executive orders

    Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, former Nigerian High Commissioner to Botswana and former Nigerian Ambassador to Belgium Prof. 

    Alaba Ogunsanwo, and Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Prof. Eghosa Osaghae, have reacted to executive orders signed by United States President Donald Trump in an interview with The Nation.

    Former Vice Chancellor, Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, Prof.  Kayode Soremekun and former Nigerian Ambassador to France and Monaco, Akin Fayomi, who was also a former Undersecretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of Studies, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos Prof. Efem Ubi, also spoke with The Nation about the issue.

    Okonjo-Iweala calls for calm

    At the 2025 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, Okonjo-Iweala addressed the development during a panel discussion held yesterday, urging member-states to keep calm.

    She advised WTO members to observe actual policy implementations before reacting, saying calmness is necessary during uncertain developments.

    “I’m concerned, but you can see my attitude and approach is keep calm. Let’s see what policies are actually enacted and implemented before we get overexcited,” she said.

    Osaghe: we are not Americans

    The NIIA director-general said the executive orders are American laws and not Nigerian orders.

    He warned that those living in the U.S. illegally should know the consequence of their actions.

    Prof. Osaghe said: “Anybody who wants to do business with the U.S. must adapt with their laws. If anybody is coming to Nigeria, he or she must not flout our laws. He or she must face the consequence if done. The executive orders are not for Nigerians, other Africans, Indians and others. They are designed to streamline the way things are done in the U.S.”

    They are American issues, says Ogunsanwo

    Prof. Ogunsanwo described the executive orders as American issues.

    According to the international relations expert, “Any American President that is elected can issue executive orders. Anybody in living in America can go to court to challenge such orders. If it’s overruled, that is it.

    “If another president is elected, he may overrule Trump. That is America, it should not bother us as Nigerians.”

    Ambassador Fayomi: it’s premature to assess Trump’s policies

    Fayomi submitted that it was rather premature to assess Trump’s policies.

    He said: “I don’t care for Mr. Trump and his policies, but it is a surety that many of them, including this one on banning birthright citizenship, will elicit lots of discussions and interrogations as well as numerous legal actions which seem to have started as we speak.

    “If someone has a legitimate visa and is given entry into any country, including the United States, that person is not an ‘illegal immigrant’.

    “That phrase is reserved for people that come into a country illegally, without documentations, or those that have overstayed their visas, or those that are working illegally even though their visas specifically state that they are not allowed to seek employment in the country.

    “There’s the principle of “jus soli”, meaning “right of the soil” in the U.S. Constitution. Unless that aspect is amended, Mr. Trump is just wasting his time on this policy.

     “It is too early in the day to assess Mr. Trump’s controversial policies.”

    Soremekun: there may be jolt to American economy

    Prof. Soremekun said the Trump’s policy of birthright citizenship was not really new.

    “A while ago, it was put in place by Britain. But somehow the affected individuals had a way of circumventing the policy. Of course, Nigerians who hope to devolve American citizenship on their unborn children will not like this new policy.

    “On the other hand, it could well spawn a better governance policy in Nigeria. For if there is no place to take refuge, this may ensure novel and positive postures here. As for what Americans are saying some of them will welcome it. However, some will be indifferent. But please note that a lot of the low- level and low paying jobs are being done by the immigrants, particularly the illegal ones. So, there may be a jolt to the American economy.

    “I fully agree with the move to send back criminal aliens to their respective countries. Such a move will make the country safer for its citizens. But the question, however, remains: Who is a criminal? Such a person must have been tried on the platform of due process, prior to being dubbed a criminal.”

    Prof. Ubi: birthright citizenship is U.S. internal policy

    Prof Ubi yesterday declared that the birthright citizenship is U.S. internal policy, which none citizens or any other country can’t interfere with.

    “On the contrary, the policy doesn’t have any negative impact on Nigeria or any country.

    “Nigerians who might be perturbed about the birthright citizenship policy are those who are hoping to go and have their children born there. Remember, UK government also imposed same policy few years ago. Nigerians have adjusted to it.

    “That notwithstanding, the Executive Order of the birthright citizenship is being challenged by 18 states in the U.S., which is the right thing to do.

    “According to the Attorneys General of these states, the President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. But let’s wait and see what the future outcome will be.

    “On the issue of criminal aliens, I do not see anything wrong with that if the person being sent back is not a legal citizen of the Unites States. But it will be wrong to send back a bona fide U.S. citizen to his country of origin.

    “In fact, President Trump’s Executive Orders such as this undermines U.S. posture of the epitome of a liberal world order. It portrays what we term ‘international hypocrisy’.”