News and Notes: Protecting (Christian) Human Rights
By George Francis Kane
At the beginning of November President Donald Trump officially declared Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for severe violations of religious freedom. On his Truth Social media platform, he threatened that the United States would halt all foreign aid payments and “go into that disgraced country, guns-a-blazing” if the Nigerian government continued “to allow the killing of Christians.” His threat to administer “fast, vicious, and sweet” punishment was finally executed with sixteen strikes by U.S. precision missiles against alleged ISIS training camps on Christmas Day.
The attack was promoted by weeks of lobbying by conservative Christian organizations urging Trump to designate as CPCs Nigeria along with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China for alleged religious persecution. Trump apparently believes that posturing on the persecution of Christians abroad will resonate strongly with his Christian nationalist base.
I always regard the decision by any government to take a firm stand in opposition to human rights abuses anywhere in the world to be laudable. Too often we see U.S. foreign policy turn a blind eye to savagery in distant corners of the globe like East Timur or Sudan when American interests are not directly involved. The Trump administration is hardly the first to shine the guiding light of its foreign policy on the principle of “America first,” but history has provided us many examples to prove that an aggressive response can too easily result in becoming overextended. Still, if Trump takes a principled stand to stop the plunder and murder, inflicted because of their choice of religion, of a significant population in Africa’s most populous nation, I will applaud.
There is considerable doubt, however, that religious persecution accurately describes the situation of Nigeria’s Christians. The Nigerian government and many experts argue that extremist groups target both Christians and Muslims, and that the conflict is only rhetorically a religious war. Security challenges in Nigeria are complex, involving ethnic tensions, competition for resources, and criminal banditry, not just a “holy war.” Critics contend that Trump’s rhetoric exacerbates divisions within Nigeria, and may only encourage further violence.
Nigeria’s religious demographics are nearly evenly split between Muslims and Christians, with Muslims forming a slight majority in the North, and Christians concentrated in the South. Terrorist Muslim bands attack both Christian farmers and Muslim herders in a lust for territorial dominance. In Central Nigeria, where Christians constitute a majority of the population, most of the victims of terrorist murders are Christian. The U.S. missile attacks, however, were in Northwest Nigeria, against ISIS training camps. In this region, most of the victims are Muslims. According to the independent group Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), last year’s data show that the rise in Christian fatalities occurred mostly in central Nigeria, and that the vast majority of these incidents were over land disputes, rather than religious division.
The insurgent slaughter in Nigeria is appalling, and everyone should laud serious attempts to bring it to an end. Portraying it simply as religious violence is a serious error, however, which risks turning the targeting of all Christians into a reality. The murder of Christians and Muslims is equally unacceptable. Regrettably, our involvement seems to be not for the defense of human rights, but only to trumpet America’s military allegiance to Christianity.
Perhaps Trump envies King Charles for his ceremonial title of “Defender of the Faith.” The President of the United States, however, must be faithful to his nation’s commitment to its constitutional promise of the separation of state and religion. The problem with the U.S. military action in Nigeria is that the Establishment Clause forbids government to prefer one religion over any other. It would have been easy for Trump to explain the missile strikes as a rescue of all Nigerian people from terrorist groups, but he clearly framed it as a rescue of Christians because we Americans identify with them. The authors of the Bill of Rights did not intend to resume the Crusades of the Middle Ages.
