Menu

Of American aid and imperial destabilisation of Nigeria 12 Mar 2025

In the 1980s, some senior functionaries of the Nigerian state were invited to a colloquium on Nigeria in the southeastern European country of Bulgaria. When they got there, they were told that the annual event had held the previous nine years without an extension of invitation to Nigeria. It was on the 14th anniversary of the conference that the Bulgarian authorities organising the event for the first time invited Nigeria’s official participation.

One of the Nigerian delegates was the Oxford University-educated Femi Aribisala, who was then a senior research fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos. Amused, the international relations scholar asked the organisers why they were meeting to discuss Nigeria. They told him that everyone believed Nigeria would most likely emerge as a global economic power over the next few decades, and Bulgaria was keen on forging good relations with the country.

While recounting this story to a small audience including yours sincerely about seven years ago, Dr. Aribisala seemingly ended it abruptly with a question: “Do you think the Bulgarians are still holding the summit?”

The major Western powers reacted differently to the bright prospects of Nigeria. Britain, which colonised Nigeria, has practiced a decentralised unitary system of government since the enactment of its Acts of Union in 1707. But despite its amalgamation of the less geographically dispersed modern Nigerian territory in 1914, the colonialist nurtured a regional system in Nigeria, which maintained ethnic divisions in the country. Britain also bequeathed Nigeria a legacy of disputed census data and polarising elections, making it impossible to forge national consensus for socio-economic progress in the country.

Nigeria and several other African countries attained political independence during the Cold War era when the United States was locked in an ideological contest with the now-dismantled Soviet Union. The US used its democracy, military power, and economic might as an instrument for spreading its geopolitical influence around the world including in Africa. Many of its agencies pushed its imperial geopolitical interests and avowed democratic values through diplomatic channels, brute force – including invasion of sovereign states and political assassinations – and by providing humanitarian aid. While Americans might view these agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as separate institutions, in reality they are coordinated in advancing the hegemonic agenda of their country. This stratagem is systemically ingrained and maintained by senior US bureaucrats across Democratic and Republican administrations.

For good or bad, President Donald Trump appears to want to upend the system. His “America first” ideology, which translates to “America only” in its implementation, is projecting American imperialism, pushed without a necessity for humanitarian toga. And in the context of disrupting the US political establishment, recent revelations from the work of the new Department of Government Efficiency, co-headed by the richest man alive, Elon Musk, scandalised the USAID as systemically corrupt. The louder bombshell that is reverberating in socio-political commentary in Nigeria is that the USAID has been a ‘sponsor’ of Boko Haram in Nigeria and other deadly terror groups around the world.

Trump has ordered a temporary pause to US foreign aid. Many African leaders have said this is a wake-up call for the continent to wean itself of aid and look inward. Afterall, while diaspora remittances to Africa in 2023 totalled $90.2 billion, total aid to the continent was $59.7 billion, including $12.1 billion provided by USAID. But, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Africa loses around $88.6 billion annually due to illicit financial flows including money lost to multinational corporations. Moreover, Africa is also reputed to hold substantial deposits of rare earth metals that are needed for cutting-edge technologies and for the global energy transition, underscoring its substantial resource endowment.

But this line of response is mistaken at least in three ways. First, African leaders didn’t have to wait for Trumpian nationalism as a cue for them to get serious with development in their countries. Since 2018, for instance, Nigeria has become the country with the highest absolute number of poor people in the world. Africa has remained the backwater of global development and continues to bear the highest burden of diseases and is hampered by lack of technological knowhow and poor infrastructure. If this has not moved the leaders to being serious, the withdrawal of foreign aid is unlikely to fundamentally change their attitude.

Second, the impact of aid may be minuscule at country or continental level. But it is consequential for the individual beneficiaries. Granted, a larger percentage of foreign financial aid is spent in the originating countries and consumed by international career professionals that run the programmes. This does not mean some good is not being done with the rest.

Third, and most importantly, African countries will not achieve development in a geopolitical vacuum. Their leaders have to be adept at navigating complex international politics and global financial markets that exaggerate African risks relative to other regions to forge cooperative relationships and attract foreign investment capital. In a geopolitically-fraught region and during the Cold War, a disciplined, visionary, and competent leadership of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore. South Korea and India are well integrated in global markets with the latter making advances even in military and space.

Trump’s policy stances are compelling reactions from America’s allies, rivals, and vulnerable bystanders, including Nigeria and other African countries. Strategic responses are not inappropriate. However, overreaction could become a risk in itself. African countries must overcome their internal political challenges, get serious with development, and become savvy in geopolitics.