United States of America

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

Recent signals from Washington suggest a growing impatience with Nigeria’s internal complexities, especially as they relate to religion, security, and political leadership. At the centre of this emerging posture is a troubling tendency to compress Nigeria’s layered crises into externally convenient labels—labels that risk doing more harm than good.

One of the clearest flashpoints in this evolving narrative is the renewed attention to former Kano State governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. His name, along with those of Fulani-affiliated organisations and, by implication, Nigeria’s Muslim political class, has begun to feature in American policy conversations framed around religious freedom and accountability. What appears, at first glance, as principled concern deserves closer scrutiny.

Nigeria’s security breakdown is undeniable. Insurgency, banditry, farmer–herder violence, and organised criminal networks have torn through communities across the country. But these tragedies have never respected religious boundaries. Muslims and Christians, northerners and southerners, rural farmers and urban traders have all paid the price. To reframe this national trauma primarily as a story of religious persecution is to flatten reality into something politically useful but analytically false.

This framing did not emerge organically. It has been cultivated through persistent lobbying, selective reporting, and advocacy-driven briefs circulated within Western policy and faith-based circles. Many of these narratives rely on contested data sets and ideologically motivated interpretations that have been challenged by journalists and security analysts familiar with Nigeria’s terrain. Yet repetition has given them traction.

Under Donald Trump, the United States has shown a greater willingness to convert these narratives into policy instruments. Nigeria’s earlier designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” over alleged religious persecution, and the signals accompanying its reconsideration, reinforced the impression that Washington had settled on a moral script that leaves little room for nuance.

What is especially alarming is how this posture now intersects with Nigeria’s domestic political timeline. The proposal of punitive measures against figures like Kwankwaso—who has no public record of religious extremism—raises uncomfortable questions about motive and timing. Sanctions, visa restrictions, or terror designations do not occur in a vacuum; they shape reputations, constrain political options, and influence electoral perceptions.

Even more dangerous is the elastic use of terms such as “Fulani militia.” The Fulani are not a monolith, nor are they a security organisation. They are a vast, diverse population spread across West and Central Africa, encompassing professionals, farmers, scholars, politicians, and pastoralists. To collapse this diversity into a security label is not accountability—it is ethnic profiling with far-reaching consequences.

Those who defend this approach often argue that allowing clerics or religiously identified politicians into democratic space risks sanctifying power. That concern is not without merit. In plural societies, when political authority borrows the language of divine legitimacy, dissent can be recast as moral deviance. But that argument cuts both ways. External actors who cloak geopolitical interests in moral absolutism risk exporting the very instability they claim to oppose.

Nigeria’s democracy, imperfect as it is, rests on pluralism, negotiation, and the acceptance of politics as a human—rather than sacred—enterprise. When foreign policy instruments treat Nigerian political actors as symbols in a global religious drama, they undermine this fragile equilibrium. Worse still, they embolden local extremists who thrive on polarisation and grievance.

None of this is to argue against international engagement or concern for human rights. On the contrary, Nigeria benefits from cooperation with partners such as the United States in intelligence sharing, capacity building, and counterterrorism. But partnership must be grounded in evidence, context, and restraint—not in sweeping classifications shaped by advocacy pressure or domestic American politics.

If Washington’s objective is stability in West Africa, then the path forward lies in engagement rather than labelling, dialogue rather than designation. Nigeria’s challenges are internal, complex, and deeply rooted. They cannot be solved by reducing political figures to caricatures or entire communities to security threats.

Kwankwaso’s politics, like that of any public figure, should be judged by Nigerians through debate, scrutiny, and the ballot. External political labelling, however well-intentioned, risks distorting that process and deepening divisions within an already strained federation.

In the end, what Nigeria requires from its partners is not moral theatre but sober cooperation. Fairness, evidence, and respect for internal democratic processes remain the only sustainable foundations for international engagement.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu is a journalist and syndicate writer based in Abuja.

By Amir Abdulazeez

Several decades into the global modern era, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans continue to be held hostage by their colonially indoctrinated inferior mindsets engineered by the blackmail and mythology of Western moral supremacy. This error is not in observing Western virtues, many of which are real. The error is in the uncritical veneration that renders their vices invisible and their judgements unchallengeable. It is evident from the events of the last three decades alone that the so-called saner climes of Europe and North America are the primary architects of global chaos and instability of nations, all in the name of injecting sanity into ‘less sane’ societies.

The ongoing US-Israel war on Iran, launched in the midst of Ramadan, is a typical doctrine of the saner climes, exhibited in its most naked form. Iran’s Foreign Minister had said three days before the war was declared that a nuclear agreement was ‘within reach’ after a third round of indirect talks in Geneva. 

The IAEA itself confirmed there was no evidence of a structured Iranian nuclear weapons programme at the time of the attack. Yet, the surprise assault assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, killed his family members and damaged schools, hospitals and even UNESCO-recognised cultural heritage sites. This is a typical catalogue of barbaric war crimes for which the West has condemned others across generations. 

The Donald Trump administration, whose seemingly rude, dishonest and arrogant officials, has offered a menu of rationalisations and a handful of conflicting justifications for the war. However, when Amnesty International confirmed that the United States was responsible for a strike that killed at least 160 primary school girls, the US officials chose arrogance through denials instead of remorse. 

In fact, the Head of the Federal Communications Commission simultaneously intimidated his own press, threatening the withdrawal of broadcast licenses of American news outlets whose war coverage he deemed unfavourable. Another trademark saner-climes mythology, muzzled in a way only a few non-saner climes can imagine. 

Meanwhile, in all these, it is the ‘lunatic’ Iran that is supposed to apologise and do nothing while it is attacked. The Iranian Regime, branded as autocratic on the premise that it compels women to cover their hair in public, is being lectured by leaders of societies whose women go out naked in the name of civilisation and whose governments topple, kill and abduct Heads of state of other countries for recklessly greedy reasons. 

Now imagine if the erratically behaving Donald Trump were the leader of any African Country, the West would have since declared him incoherent and unstable to deal with or labelled his citizens stupid for voting for him. Worse still, imagine if the Epstein scandal happened in Asia or Latin America. All these contradictions reveal with crystal clarity that Western principles are instruments of convenience. 

To understand the foundations of all these, let us revisit some history. Britain’s Industrial Revolution was fertilised by the profits of the transatlantic slave trade and the systematic plunder of India, a country whose share of global GDP fell from about 25% at the onset of colonial rule to barely 4% at independence. 

France financed much of its republican grandeur on the forced labour of West Africa and the Caribbean. Belgium’s King Leopold II transformed the Congo into a private abattoir, severing the hands of Africans who failed to meet rubber quotas, leaving behind a traumatised country that still bleeds today. 

To speak of the sanity of those climes without acknowledging that they were partly built from organised insanity inflicted elsewhere is to ignore the background to what we are witnessing today.

In the last fifty years alone, the so-called saner climes have unleashed a level of violence and destabilisation that would shame any regime they have ever deemed fit to condemn. The United States, the self-acclaimed sentinel of the free world, has engineered irrational regime changes in Chile (1973), Iran (1953 and subsequently), Guatemala (1954), Nicaragua, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, among others. The 1973 CIA-backed coup against a democratically elected socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, installed Augusto Pinochet, under whose reign thousands were tortured, disappeared, or executed. Henry Kissinger, the American architect of that atrocity, received the Nobel Peace Prize from his fellow saner clime comrades. 

The French Government, through its notorious Françafrique policy, maintained a neocolonial empire across West and Central Africa long after the 1960s, propping up murderous dictators and conducting military interventions to protect economic interests, with a consistency that made a mockery of every democratic principle France professed to uphold.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Western Governments is perhaps the most consequential act of manufactured catastrophe of the modern era. The war resulted in the deaths of an estimated 200,000 to one million Iraqi civilians, the obliteration of the country’s infrastructure, the rise of ISIS from the ashes of a disbanded Iraqi army and the triggering of a refugee crisis that continues to destabilise the Middle East. No one was held accountable. George W. Bush and Tony Blair are living happy lives in their saner countries. The International Criminal Court, which has indicted multiple African heads of state on much lesser crimes with considerable alacrity, found no jurisdiction to examine any of them. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq, Syria and Libya who were dismantled in the name of liberation still live in the ruins and pains of what the saner climes call democracy.

While the West was busy bombing the Middle East, Africa, the so-called backward continent, was largely attending to its own affairs of conflict resolution with a remarkable degree of maturity. The African Union mediated crises in Burundi, the Gambia and Lesotho without firing a single bullet. ECOWAS brokered peace agreements in Sierra Leone and Liberia and deployed peacekeeping forces with genuine multilateral mandates, without the casual trigger-happiness of Western powers. 

Western attitude towards violence is shamelessly selective. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Saner Clime’s response was swift, comprehensive and morally unambiguous: sanctions, weapons, diplomatic isolation and a media chorus of civilizational solidarity. This response was appropriate anyway. But the problem is its stark contrast with the Western posture toward other invasions. When Saudi Arabia launched its war on Yemen in 2015, the United States and the United Kingdom did not merely decline to intervene; they allegedly supplied the bombs, refuelled the warplanes and provided intelligence for strikes that killed thousands of Yemeni civilians and engineered one of the worst humanitarian crises on earth. 

Many argue that the actions of Western governments do not accurately reflect what their citizens stand for. This is debatable, especially when one examines certain incidents. During the Obama presidency, Edward Snowden revealed that the US National Security Agency was conducting mass, warrantless surveillance of American citizens and foreign governments, including the personal telephone of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in flagrant violation of constitutional protections and international diplomatic norms. The response was not accountability but exile for Snowden and a classification of his revelations as treason. 

The United States has the largest prison population on earth, both in absolute numbers and per capita, administered under a system in which Black Americans are incarcerated at five times the rate of their white counterparts, in conditions that the United Nations has described as cruel. Since 1968, gun violence has claimed more American lives than all of America’s foreign wars combined. One might be inclined to believe that these controversies are ones ordinary Western citizens may not approve of.

Climate change is another damning indictment of Western moral authority in the twenty-first century. The Industrial activities enriching Europe and North America still depend on burning carbon at a scale the planet has never experienced. The United States, historically the world’s largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases, withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement under Donald Trump. 

Australia, another clime reputed to be considerably saner than most, has built its prosperity on coal exports and resisted meaningful emissions reduction. Some Pacific Island nations face sea submersions within this century as a consequence of decisions made in saner capitals. When these nations’ leaders speak at the United Nations with tears in their voices, the saner climes offer symbolic but empty sympathy before later returning to preserving their industrial prerogatives. 

The Western Media’s tactical twisting of narratives regarding other climes is another issue. For example, CNN may not run primetime documentaries on the Swiss banking system’s complicity in laundering the proceeds of African kleptocracy, but will rather concentrate on the primary kleptocrats. The BBC does not lead with investigations into the role of British arms dealers in sustaining African conflicts. The New York Times does not dedicate its front page to the tax avoidance schemes through which Western corporations drain billions of dollars annually from African economies (more than the continent receives in foreign aid).

In addition to all this, there is something more worrisome. The bulk of support received by these saner climes comes from their victims in the third world. In Nigeria, for instance, the blind sympathy for religious affiliations drives people to support the brazen oppression and cruel injustices perpetrated by the West. Our solidarity should be among ourselves, not with those who see and treat us as worthless humans and more like animals because of their superior moral hypocrisy. 

Additionally, our bootlicking governments, which are considered close to valueless in the International arena or even insane just like us, must stop intimidating their own citizens who decide to speak up against Western double standards. Let’s remember, the phrase “saner climes” is a moral verdict and a devastating condemnation of everywhere else except Europe and North America. Africans and all peoples of the marginalised world are owed the intellectual inheritance of critical discernment.

The world does not need more or fewer saner climes; it needs a more honest accounting of what sanity actually requires. It requires consistency: the same rules applied to the powerful and the powerless alike. It requires humility: the acknowledgement that no civilisation holds a monopoly on wisdom. 

And it requires accountability: not the selective justice of indicting the weak and glorifying the mighty, but the universal application of standards that do not bend before a Security Council veto or the impulse of a self-serving superpower. Until that accounting arrives, the presumption of Western moral authority deserves not deference, but fearless interrogation; the kind that the so-called saner climes have always claimed to celebrate and so rarely been prepared to receive.

By Iranloye Sofiu Taiye

The world has entered a phase in which power no longer feels compelled to wear moral disguises. From Eastern Europe to the Middle East, from East Asia to Latin America, coercion has re-emerged as an acceptable instrument of statecraft, and sovereignty has become increasingly conditional, least respected when convenient and violated when costly restraint disappears.

The Russia–Ukraine war, China’s posture towards Taiwan, Israel’s war in Gaza, and the long-standing pressure campaign against Venezuela are not isolated crises. They are symptoms of a systemic transition: the erosion of post–Cold War restraint and the reassertion of raw power politics in a crowded, mistrustful, and increasingly multipolar international system.

For Africa, this moment is not abstract. It is existential. The same forces reshaping Europe, Asia, and Latin America are already present on the African continent through resource competition, security outsourcing, debt diplomacy, sanctions regimes, proxy alignments, and political conditionality. The difference is that Africa often confronts these forces without a unified strategy, relying instead on appeals to history, morality, or international goodwill. That approach is no longer sufficient.

Realist theory, as articulated by thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer, offers a brutally honest diagnosis of the international system. It reminds us that global politics is characterised by anarchy, not law; that survival, not virtue, motivates states; and that power, not rhetoric, ultimately determines outcomes.

Recent conflicts confirm realism’s core claims: Russia acted in Ukraine not because of moral failure but because it perceived a narrowing window to secure its sphere of influence. China’s pressure on Taiwan is driven less by ideology than by long-term assessments of capability, timing, and strategic opportunity. Israel’s conduct in Gaza reflects the logic of overwhelming deterrence in an insecure regional environment. The United States’ treatment of Venezuela illustrates how economic warfare substitutes for direct military intervention in an era of reputational constraints.

In each case, capability trumped legality, and vulnerability invited pressure. Yet realism, while accurate in diagnosing power behaviour, becomes dangerous when treated as destiny. Taken to its logical extreme, it suggests that weaker states have only three options: submission, alignment, or destruction. This is analytically lazy and politically paralysing.

History and current global practice demonstrate that survival is not reserved for the strongest but for the most strategically positioned. The key distinction between states that withstand pressure and those that collapse is not moral standing but strategic architecture.

Ukraine did not survive Russia’s invasion because it matched Moscow militarily. It survived because it transformed a bilateral war into a multilateral stake. By embedding its security dilemma within NATO, the EU, and global norms, Ukraine increased the cost of Russian victory beyond the battlefield.

Taiwan’s resilience lies not only in its arms but also in its economy. Its centrality to global semiconductor supply chains converts any military action into a worldwide economic crisis. Invasion becomes irrational not because it is impossible, but because it is prohibitively disruptive.

Palestine commands unprecedented global sympathy yet remains structurally vulnerable. Without credible security guarantees, economic leverage, or institutional power, moral legitimacy alone has not translated into sovereignty.

Venezuela’s leadership adopted confrontational rhetoric without building defensive alliances, diversified economic networks, or institutional shields. The result has been isolation, sanctions, and internal fragility, confirming that outrage without insulation invites coercion. The lesson is stark: states do not survive because they are right; they survive because they are costly to dominate. Afghanistan’s resilience is a case study. 

Africa today occupies a paradoxical position. The continent is: Central to the global energy transition (critical minerals), demographically pivotal, geopolitically courted by rival powers, and numerically powerful in multilateral institutions; alas, Africa remains strategically fragmented. Most African states still approach global politics through the language of gratitude, alignment, or moral appeal rather than through calculated leverage. The continent’s diplomatic posture is often reactive rather than anticipatory.

This is dangerous in a world where: aid is weaponised, debt is politicised, sanctions are normalised, and security assistance comes with strategic strings. Africa risks becoming the quiet theatre of the next great-power contest, not because it is weak, but because it is insufficiently coordinated.

What Africa requires is neither idealism nor cynicism, but strategic realism with agency a doctrine that accepts power politics while refusing subjugation.

Such a doctrine would rest on five pillars.

1. Strategic Indispensability: Africa must move beyond raw resource exportation toward value-chain centrality. Countries that control processing, logistics, and industrial ecosystems are harder to coerce than those that merely supply inputs.

2. Networked Sovereignty: Sovereignty in the 21st century is not isolationist. It is embedded on favourable terms through regional blocs, trade regimes, and security compacts that dilute unilateral pressure.

3. Institutional Power, Not Institutional Faith: Africa must stop treating international institutions as moral referees and start using them as arenas of contestation. Voting blocs, agenda-setting, and procedural leverage matter.

4. Strategic Non-Alignment, Not Passivity: Non-alignment must evolve from rhetorical neutrality into active hedging, diversifying partnerships, avoiding dependency traps, and exploiting multipolar competition without becoming a proxy.

5. Continental Coordination: No African state, regardless of size, can negotiate effectively alone in a hardened global system. Continental coherence in economic, diplomatic, and security-related is no longer aspirational; it is existential.

Conclusively, power will not wait for Africa to be ready; the defining feature of the emerging world order is not chaos, but selective constraint. Power will be exercised where resistance is weak, fragmented, or sentimental and restrained where costs are high, and consequences diffuse. Africa cannot afford another century of learning this lesson too late. The continent must abandon the illusion that shared history, moral standing, or international sympathy will shield it from coercion. Those narratives did not protect Ukraine, Palestine, or Venezuela. They will not protect Africa.

What will protect Africa is a strategy: the ability to anticipate pressure, restructure vulnerability, and convert relevance into leverage. In a world where power has shed its disguises, survival belongs not to the loudest protester, but to the most strategically prepared.

Iranloye Sofiu Taiye is a policy analyst and wrote via iranloye100@gmail.com.

U.S. President Donald J. Trump has claimed that the United States carried out a “powerful and deadly” military strike against ISIS targets in northwest Nigeria.

In a statement released on Thursday night, Trump said the operation was conducted under his direction as commander in chief and targeted ISIS fighters accused of killing civilians, particularly Christians. He described the strikes as highly successful and warned that further military action would follow if the violence continues.

There has been no independent confirmation of the operation from U.S. defense officials, and no details have been provided regarding the exact locations, casualties, or scope of the strikes.

As of the time of this report, the Nigerian government has not issued any official statement responding to or confirming the claims.

By Maryam Ahmed

Florida is poised to carry out its 18th execution of the year on Tuesday, marking the state’s deadliest year on record, after death row inmate Mark Geralds declined to challenge his death warrant.

Geralds, convicted of the 1989 murder of a woman in Panama City, spent more than three decades on death row before Governor Ron DeSantis signed his execution order last month. In a rare move, Geralds informed officials that he would not pursue the final round of appeals typically filed by inmates facing imminent execution.

His execution by lethal injection will also contribute to a national surge in capital punishment, pushing the United States toward its highest annual total in nearly twenty years. Florida, which has significantly accelerated its use of the death penalty in recent years, now accounts for a large share of the country’s executions in 2025.

The spike has intensified debate among legal experts, civil-liberties groups, and faith leaders, many of whom warn that the growing pace leaves less room to identify wrongful convictions or address longstanding concerns about racial bias, mental health, and sentencing disparities.

State officials, however, argue that the system provides ample opportunity for review and that carrying out sentences brings long-delayed closure to victims’ families. Geralds’ execution, they say, follows decades of litigation, during which multiple courts upheld his conviction and sentence.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Netflix is set to acquire Warner Bros Discovery, including HBO Max and the company’s historic film studios, in a landmark deal valued at $83 billion, marking one of the most significant shake-ups in modern entertainment history.

The agreement brings together Netflix’s vast global streaming footprint with Warner Bros’ deep library of iconic franchises, from DC superheroes to the Wizarding World, and critically acclaimed HBO series such as Game of Thrones and Succession.

As part of the arrangement, Warner Bros Discovery will first spin off its cable networks — including CNN, TNT and TBS — into a separate entity before the sale is finalised. The merger still faces regulatory scrutiny in the U.S. and Europe, with critics warning that the consolidation could suppress competition and limit creative diversity.

If approved, the tie-up would create a powerhouse straddling both Hollywood tradition and streaming dominance, reshaping the future of global media.

By Saidu Ahmad Dukawa 

Introduction

At last, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has made the decision he had long planned against Nigeria, following complaints by some Nigerian Christians who alleged that they were victims of religious persecution in the country.

Trump had once placed a similar sanction on Nigeria during his first term, but after he lost the election to Joe Biden, Biden reversed that “rash and unfair” decision.

This new ruling, however, requires Nigeria to take certain actions in line with America’s interests — or face a series of sanctions. For example, these “American interests” could include the following:

1. Any Nigerian state practising Sharia Law must abolish it.

2. Any law that prohibits blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) must be repealed.

3. Any location where Christians wish to build a church must grant them permission to do so.

4. Anything that Christians claim makes them “uncomfortable” in the country — such as businesses involving halal trade — must be stopped.

5. All businesses that Christians desire, such as the alcohol trade, must be freely allowed across the nation.

These are just examples of the complaints made by some Christian groups to the United States, which may also include political and economic demands.

This action by Trump mirrors what America once did to Iraq under Saddam Hussein — accusing the country of possessing weapons of mass destruction, just to justify an invasion.

If true justice were the goal, then both sides — the accusers and the Nigerian authorities — should have been listened to, including Muslim organisations that provided counter-evidence.

Even among Christians, many reasonable voices have spoken against these exaggerated claims, yet their words are ignored. Clearly, a plan against Nigeria had already been set in motion.

So, what is left for the Nigerian government and its citizens to do? Here is my opinion:

WHAT THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO

1. Use diplomatic channels to inform the Trump administration that the situation is being misrepresented. Even if America remains adamant, the rest of the sensible world will know that any step America takes against Nigeria on this basis is pure injustice, and that knowledge itself will have benefits.

2. Reduce dependence on the United States in key areas such as trade, education, and healthcare. Nigeria should instead strengthen its ties with other countries, such as Russia, China, and Turkey.

3. Unite Nigerians — both Muslims and Christians who do not share this divisive mindset — to resist and expose any malicious plots against the nation.

WHAT THE NIGERIAN PEOPLE SHOULD DO

1. All Nigerians — Muslims and Christians alike — should begin to reduce their personal and travel ties with the United States, especially visa applications, as it may no longer be easy to obtain them.

2. Those who hold large amounts of US dollars should consider converting their funds into other global currencies.

3. Muslims with good relationships with Christians should not let this tension destroy their friendships — and vice versa. Let unity prevail.

4. Muslims must not lose hope or courage. They should realise that they have no powerful ally. Non-Muslims are the ones with global backing. The Jews can commit atrocities against Muslims, and America will support them. In India, Muslims are being killed — America is silent. In China, Muslims face persecution — America is silent.

In Nigeria, there is no single town where Muslims have chased out Christians, but in Tafawa Balewa, Christians expelled Muslims and took over the town. Terrorists who kill indiscriminately in Nigeria have taken more Muslim lives than Christian ones — yet Trump publicly declared that only Christian lives matter.

Still, Muslims can take comfort in one fact: Islam is spreading fast in both America and Europe. Perhaps, one day, when Islam gains ground there, justice and fairness will finally return to the world — because today’s problem is rooted in the injustice that Western powers built the world upon.

5. Nigerian Christians themselves need to wake up to the truth — that the Western world does not honestly care about Christianity, only about controlling resources and power.

If they really cared about Christian lives, they wouldn’t have ignored what’s happening in Congo — a country with one of the largest Christian populations — where Christians kill one another. The same goes for Haiti, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Rwanda.

There are numerous examples of Christian nations facing crises. And when Nigerian Christians think of running to the US for refuge, they will realise that America will not take them in. Therefore, it’s wiser to live peacefully with their Muslim brothers and sisters here in Nigeria.

6. Finally, it is the duty of all believers to constantly pray for Nigeria — that God protects it from every form of harm and evil.

Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

Dr Saidu Ahmad Dukawa wrote from Bayero University, Kano (BUK).

By Amir Abdulazeez

The United Nations is currently holding its 80th General Assembly sessions in New York. Some days earlier, the U.S. State Department, under the pretext of national security and anti-terrorism laws, revoked visas for dozens of Palestinian officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas slated to participate, at the General Assembly and a high-level two-state conference. This move drew criticism from the UN itself, EU and some human rights groups, with calls to relocate Palestinian-related meetings outside New York. This echoes historical precedents, notably the 1988 visa denial to Late Yasser Arafat, which forced the UN to shift one of its sessions to Geneva to allow him participate.

Although the 1947 ‘Headquarters Agreement’ obliges the United States to admit all UN participants, Washington occasionally and selectively invokes security and legal excuses to discriminate between entrants. Such practices explain how the UN’s operations remain vulnerable to U.S. control, thereby undermining its independence, authority and credibility. As the UN marks the 80th anniversary of the ratification of its charter on 24th October 2025, the organization which was founded on the ashes of World War II in 1945 faces an existential crisis of credibility and effectiveness.

While it has achieved notable successes in humanitarian aid, educational research and global environmental and health initiatives, its core mission of maintaining international peace and security has been repeatedly undermined by structural and diplomatic flaws. The organization’s inability to meaningfully respond to crises from Syria to Ukraine and most visibly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has exposed fundamental weaknesses that warrant urgent reform. The UN’s record is one of profound paradox: a body designed for action but often defined by its inaction. Nowhere is this impotence more starkly illustrated than in its 70 years’ failure to resolve the Palestinian question or to hold Israel accountable for its international impunities.

From the outset of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United Nations assumed a central role by proposing the 1947 Partition Plan, which sought to establish separate independent states for both parties. Although initially conceived as a potential path to peace, the plan was never enforced and the UN has since struggled to translate its own decisions into reality. Further failures are documented in a paper trail of unimplemented resolutions: Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) called for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied during the Six-Day War; Resolution 338 (1973) and countless subsequent resolutions reaffirmed this demand that was not only ignored but instead empowered Israel’s massive expansion of illegal settlements.

Beyond the unimplemented resolutions, a critical UN failure in this regard is that of narrative framing. It has been unable to consistently enforce a foundational principle: that the right to self-determination for one people (Israelis) cannot be predicated on the denial of that same right to another (Palestinians). The organization’s various bodies often treat the conflict as a symmetrical dispute between two equal parties, rather than an asymmetrical struggle between a nuclear-armed occupying power and a stateless, occupied population living under a brutal blockade.

The core of the UN’s ineffectiveness lies in the flawed decision-making structure of its Security Council, where the five permanent members (United States, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom) hold the autocratic privilege of veto power. This system of outdated World War II geopolitics has frequently paralyzed the organization in hours of need. Since 1946, the veto has been selfishly exercised about 300 times. Between 2011 and 2023, Russia and China blocked 16 resolutions on Syria, enabling the Assad regime’s brutal campaign against civilians. The United States, meanwhile, has used its veto more than 50 times to shield Israel from accountability, making Palestine the single most vetoed issue in UN history. Instead of serving as a platform for global security, the Council has become an arena for shameless and hypocritical power politics.

The General Assembly, despite representing all 193 member states equally, has been relegated to a largely ceremonial role in matters of international peace and security. While the Assembly can pass resolutions by majority vote, these carry no binding legal force and are routinely ignored by powerful nations. The 2012 resolution calling for an arms embargo on Syria passed with 133 votes but had no practical effect, as Russia continued supplying weapons to the Assad government. This has created a two-tiered system where the views of the international majority are systematically subordinated to the interests of Security Council Super Powers.

The selective enforcement of international law has become a defining hallmark of UN impotence. While the organization has at times demonstrated resolve such as coordinating global sanctions against apartheid South Africa in the 1980s or authorizing military intervention in Libya in 2011, its responses to other similar crises have been inconsistent and politically driven. Similarly, the International Criminal Court, often operating with UN support, swiftly indicted leaders of Liberia, Sudan and Libya, yet no Western or allied leaders like George W. Bush or Tony Blair have been held to account for baseless interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen. These double standards have eroded the UN’s credibility and moral authority, particularly in the Global South, where it is increasingly viewed as an instrument of Western hegemony.

The UN’s peacekeeping apparatus, while successful in some contexts, has also demonstrated significant limitations when confronting determined state actors. The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on the Golan Heights and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have maintained buffer zones during their operations, but have been powerless to prevent violations by all parties. During the 2006 Lebanon War and subsequent conflicts, these forces could only observe and report violations rather than enforce compliance.

Financial manipulation has emerged as another tool of selective pressure within the UN system. The United States, which contributes 22% of the UN’s regular budget, has repeatedly withheld or threatened to withhold funding to pressure the organization on specific issues. In 2018, the Trump administration cut $285 million from UN peacekeeping operations and reduced contributions to various UN agencies. The UN’s human rights mechanisms face similar challenges of selective application and political manipulation. The Human Rights Council, reformed in 2006 to address criticisms of its predecessor, continues to be influenced by bloc voting and political considerations rather than objective human rights assessments. Countries with questionable human rights records have served on the Council while using their positions to deflect criticism and protect allies.

Critics argue that the UN has become a stage for symbolic debates while real decisions and tangible actions are outsourced to global bullies like the US, less formal coalitions like the NATO and regional actors like the EU. For example, the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states without addressing core Palestinian concerns while side-lining the UN. Similarly, its response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was limited to humanitarian aid and symbolic condemnation, as bodies like EU looked more relevant and assertive.

The rise of new global powers and changing geopolitical realities have rendered the UN’s 1945 structure increasingly obsolete. Reform proposals have circulated for decades but have consistently failed due to the resistance of existing power holders. Things have changed since World War II, nations have evolved, others have declined and hence the UN must be reformed to reflect current realities. The permanency of the Security council membership must be reviewed and the senseless veto authority must be abolished or modified along the lines of justice and accountability. As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary, the choice is clear: fundamental reform or continued irrelevance.

Maintaining the United Nations system costs about $50–55 billion per year, not counting military deployments and opportunity costs. Beyond money, states commit significant diplomatic, military, humanitarian and bureaucratic resources to maintain their participation. This makes the UN one of the most resource-intensive international organizations ever created. Without serious reforms to address structural inequalities, eliminate veto abuse and restore the primacy of international law over great power politics, the UN risks becoming a historical footnote rather than the cornerstone of the global governance its founders envisioned. The international community must decide whether it will tolerate continued dysfunction or demand the transformative changes necessary to address 21st century challenges.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

United States President Donald Trump has drawn attention with remarks made during a meeting with African leaders at the White House, where he praised Liberian President Joseph Nyuma Boakai’s English-speaking skills.

After Boakai delivered his remarks, Trump responded with visible admiration. “Such good English,” the president said.

He then asked, “Where were you educated? Where? In Liberia? Well, that’s very interesting. It’s beautiful English.”

He went further to say, “I have people at this table can’t speak nearly as well.”

The comments were made during a luncheon on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, attended by the leaders of Senegal, Gabon, Mauritania, and Guinea-Bissau, among others.

The gathering was held to deepen ties following a recent executive order signed by Trump to enhance U.S. mineral output, with a focus on collaboration with resource-rich African countries.

President Boakai, who studied at the University of Monrovia and previously served in various senior roles under former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, responded to Trump’s praise with a statement of friendship and alignment.

“Liberia is a longtime friend of the United States and we believe in your policy of making America great again,” Boakai said.

Trump’s remarks, however, sparked debate on social media and in the press. Some viewed them as complimentary, while others criticized the tone as condescending.

In defense of the president, a White House spokeswoman told The New York Times that “only the fake news could so pathetically pick apart President Trump’s heartfelt compliment during a meeting that marked a historic moment for U.S.-Africa relations.”

Liberia, located in West Africa and with a population of 5.7 million, was founded by freed Black Americans in the 1800s.

English is the country’s official language, although Liberian English and various indigenous languages are widely spoken.

The World Bank projects a 5 percent GDP growth for Liberia in 2025, driven largely by an expansion in the gold mining sector, along with improvements in agriculture and services.

The country’s reserves of rare Earth elements, including neodymium, have made it a point of interest for foreign investors, including the U.S.

Other African leaders at the White House also expressed interest in deepening economic cooperation with Washington and voiced support for policies that prioritize mutual benefit.

By Muhammad Abubakar

President Donald J. Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Congressman Buddy Carter, following a historic ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel.

Carter praised Trump’s role in ending the conflict and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, calling his leadership “bold and decisive.” The congressman credited Trump with promoting peace and stability in a volatile region.

Now serving as the 47th President of the United States, Trump’s efforts, Carter said, “exemplify the very ideals that the Nobel Peace Prize seeks to recognize.”