On October 30, 2024, President Joe Biden tweeted the following:
“Earlier, I spoke with President Tinubu of Nigeria to express my condolences on the floods impacting his country and my appreciation for his leadership in securing the humanitarian release of Tigran Gambaryan. We also spoke about the value of our partnership.”
It is no surprise that this conversation came shortly after Nigeria’s viral announcement of joining BRICS+ as a partner country. While President Biden announced the call as a gesture of condolence over recent Nigerian floods and appreciation for President Tinubu’s role in securing the release of Binance’s Tigran Gambaryan, the unannounced motive appears to be a reconfirmation of Nigeria’s loyalty to Washington amidst shifting global alliances.
This brings to mind the open letter that Nigerian novelist, short-story writer, and activist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie addressed to President Biden, a few months after Nigeria’s 2023 election, which brought President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to power. Read Full text: Chimamanda’s letter to Biden on ‘Nigeria’s Hollow Democracy’
In the said letter, she criticized the U.S. for congratulating Tinubu despite widespread concerns about electoral transparency, questioning the support for an election many Nigerians felt lacked credibility. But she did not stop there; she framed the U.S. as a guardian of democratic values, expressing hope that it would honor her letter by prioritizing transparency and democratic principles. By appealing to the U.S.’s commitment to fair governance, she positioned it as a moral overseer of Nigeria’s electoral integrity.
Let us assume she is not a smokescreen. Anyone with basic understanding of U.S. political history and foreign policy knows that placing the U.S. and democracy in the same sentence is like a person wandering through life in a haze, mistaking clouds for castles. This sentiment has once again been validated by this recent conversation between Presidents Biden and Tinubu. Now, let us educate Adichie on how U.S. policy works in practice. ALSO READ: The Case for Data Localization in Africa
U.S. strategic interests, not democracy, drive its policy
In foreign relations, the U.S. prioritizes strategic economic exploitation over democratic ideals, particularly with resource-rich countries. In countries with valuable resources or strategic importance, the U.S. supports political figures who favor its interests, regardless of their democratic records. This approach ensures a steady flow of resources to the U.S. and maintains its imperialist influence. In Nigeria, U.S. interests lie in the exploitation of its oil industry and establishing a foothold in Africa. The identity of those in power is less important to U.S. officials than whether the government aligns with U.S. objectives, such as economic exploitation and military control.
Several reports have documented that U.S. influence in foreign economies has often led to significant economic and social repercussions. The U.S. Congressional Research Service notes that America’s control of oil resources in the Middle East has secured its energy needs but destabilized countries like Iraq, leading to widespread poverty and unemployment. Similarly, Global Witness has documented U.S. corporations exploiting West African resources, with profits often benefiting American investors far more than local populations. In Latin America, Center for Economic and Policy Research findings illustrate that American-led IMF and World Bank policies contributed to cycles of debt and underdevelopment, keeping economies tied to U.S. interests.
In Africa, U.S.-based agribusinesses have also capitalized on vulnerable economies. The Oakland Institute found that American agricultural firms secured large areas of land in Ethiopia and Tanzania, often displacing communities and limiting local food production. In each case, U.S. economic interests have often contributed to inequality, undermining local growth and self-sufficiency in favor of foreign profit.
Cases of U.S. Exporting Terrorism Abroad
Throughout history, the U.S. has terrorized other countries, often overthrowing or destabilizing governments to protect its imperial interests. For instance, in 1953, the U.S. CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, after he attempted to nationalize the country’s oil resources. This terrorism helped the U.S. illegally secure access to Iran’s oil but left long-lasting resentment among Iranians, impacting U.S.-Iran relations for decades.
In 1960, the CIA backed the overthrow and eventual assassination of one of her most illustrious kinsmen, Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to install Mobutu Sese Seko—popularly regarded as a betrayer of the Congolese people—whom the U.S. saw as more favorable to its interests.
Declassified documents indicate that the CIA saw Lumumba as a threat due to his nationalist, anti-colonial stance, which they feared could push Congo toward Soviet influence. The 1975 U.S. Senate investigation (“the Church Committee”) documented CIA plans to eliminate Lumumba, including discussions of his assassination.
In Chile in 1973, the CIA backed a coup to overthrow President Salvador Allende, installing General Augusto Pinochet, whose regime aligned closely with U.S. corporate and strategic interests. This intervention was part of a broader U.S. Cold War strategy to contain socialism in Latin America. Under Pinochet, Chile’s economy shifted toward neoliberal policies favorable to foreign investment, particularly for U.S. corporations. The brutal dictatorship that followed was marked by human rights abuses, including torture, executions, and forced disappearances, with significant support and funding from the United States.
In 2011, it was once again the turn of another of her kinsmen. The U.S. led NATO forces in an operation to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, disguising under “humanitarian and democratic reasons”. However, Gaddafi was captured alive but was killed extrajudicially rather than being handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which had issued a warrant for his arrest.
Years after Muammar Gaddafi’s assassination, Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni recounted that NATO ordered a delegation from the African Union (AU), including himself to abandon their flight to Libya, where they intended to broker a diplomatic solution to the conflict. This intervention, which prioritized the preservation of Gaddafi’s life, was effectively blocked, exposing the fact that NATO preferred Gaddafi’s death and his administration changed over a peaceful resolution. The U.S. and NATO faced no accountability for this violation of international law, revealing U.S. dictatorship in the enforcement of justice in international conflicts.
Africa’s Growing Independence from Western Influence
It is noteworthy that the alliance of Sahel states has begun to reject Western interference more boldly. Countries in the region, such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, have expelled foreign troops and distanced themselves from France, the U.S., and other Western allies, asserting their own governance paths. ALSO READ: Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger to Establish One Army, One Chief of Staff
This shift indicates that African countries are increasingly unwilling to seek democratic validation from the West. Instead, they are defining governance on their terms, reflecting a trend of independence from foreign influence. This inward focus should define 21st-century African intellectuals.
Academic Knowledge vs. Political Realism
She must have read about the actions of the United States toward Cuba. Or hasn’t she? Another example of U.S. repugnance toward democracy is the long-standing embargo against Cuba. Despite global opposition, in an I-own-you-all braggadocio, the U.S. has maintained this blockade for over sixty years, crippling Cuba’s economy to deter its socialist government. ALSO READ: A Dramatic Conversation Between a U.S. Child and a Cuban Child Is this a scholar’s model for democracy and justice? The embargo costs Cuba billions annually, affecting citizens’ daily lives and demonstrating the U.S. willingness to impose economic hardship without regard for democratic will.
Distastefully, her literary work contrasts with her practical engagement in justice and ethics, as seen in her letter to Biden, where she portrays the U.S. as a guardian of democratic values—an image that clashes with historical evidence. This brings to prominence a disconnect between academic ideals and the realities of global politics. She should focus on her fiction instead of addressing practical issues beyond her expertise. Unlike prose, history cannot be reinvented. The world already knows the United States for what it is. Africa is turning inward, recognizing that its challenges require African and African solutions alone! Let us now turn our attention to the one who sits in that Aso Rock.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the most excellent of all puppets
Nigeria operates as a business venture, with the U.S. as its Chief Executive Officer and the West—the Board of Directors—under the chairmanship of the U.S. This arrangement serves not the interests of Nigerians but the exploitation of the country’s resources for Western development. Insecurity is used to justify the narrative that the West must provide aid to Nigeria, which actually promotes a false image of the West as caring, deceiving uninformed Nigerians who are suffering from a deliberately destroyed education system. For decades of aid, Nigeria and Africa remain backward.
While the U.S. prioritizes its strategic interests over democracy, the Nigerian government shared responsibility cannot be ignored—the one who steals an orange is as guilty as the one who custodians it.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, just as those before him, plays the role of a puppet, furthering the West’s agenda to continuously plunder Nigeria. His greed for primitive accumulation of wealth unpricks his conscience to the plight of the masses suffering from unemployment, hunger, and insecurity—which, anyways, are schemes used to keep the Nigerian masses under subjugation. These schemes work, until they no longer work.
As long as he and his cronies are shielded by the military might of the West, T-Pain shows no concern for the devastating consequences faced by Nigerian masses. Day by day, he is breaking his own record as Nigeria’s most excellent puppet, diligently supervising the crippling of the most populous and resourceful African country.
Rather than the repetitive illusionary hope in an electoral process designed to fail, Nigeria’s problems require a complete overhaul of its existing system that caters to foreign interests coordinated by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s democratic Jesus!
