United States of America

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 Any law that prohibits blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) must be repealed.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

By Muhammad Abubakar

In a historic development, the Catholic Church has elected Robert Francis Prevost as the new pope, marking the first time an American has ascended to the papacy. The decision was announced from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica following the traditional white smoke signal from the Sistine Chapel on Thursday.

Pope Robert I, as he will now be known, hails from Chicago, Illinois, and previously served as the Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops. Known for his pastoral sensitivity and administrative skill, the 69-year-old cleric has long been regarded as a bridge between tradition and reform within the Church.

Thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square to witness the historic moment, many expressing surprise and hope over the unprecedented choice.

The new pontiff addressed the faithful in multiple languages, asking for prayers and unity in a world “deeply in need of peace, compassion, and truth.”

Analysts see his election as a signal of the Church’s growing global inclusivity and a recognition of the American Church’s rising influence.

More details about his vision and forthcoming priorities are expected in the coming days as he officially begins his pontificate.

By Muhammad Abubakar

In a controversial move, the Trump administration has announced a new policy offering $1,000 to undocumented migrants who voluntarily leave the United States. The initiative, branded as a “self-deportation incentive,” is part of broader efforts by the administration to reduce the number of migrants residing illegally in the country.

According to Department of Homeland Security officials, the program aims to ease pressure on immigration detention centres and reduce deportation costs. Eligible migrants must meet certain criteria, including passing background checks and agreeing to leave the country within a set timeframe.

Critics have called the policy coercive and dehumanising, arguing that it targets vulnerable populations who may feel forced to leave under economic pressure. Supporters, however, defend the measure as a cost-effective and voluntary alternative to formal deportation proceedings.

The offer has sparked fresh debate on immigration policy as the administration continues to advocate for tighter border controls and enforcement.

It remains unclear how many migrants will take up the offer or how the program will be monitored in practice.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

An Illinois man has been sentenced to 53 years in prison for the fatal stabbing of a six-year-old Palestinian-American boy in what prosecutors described as a hate-motivated attack.

Joseph Czuba, 71, was convicted earlier this year of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated battery after he attacked Wadea Al-Fayoume and the boy’s mother, Hanaan Shahin, at their home in Plainfield Township in October 2023. Authorities said Czuba targeted the victims because of their Muslim faith and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

During sentencing on Friday, the judge described the act as “brutal and senseless,” emphasising the need for justice and deterrence in cases driven by hate.

Wadea, who had recently celebrated his sixth birthday, was stabbed 26 times. His mother, who survived the attack, suffered multiple stab wounds and continues to recover.

The case drew national attention and widespread condemnation, with civil rights groups calling for greater protection of Muslim and Arab-American communities amid rising tensions.

Czuba showed no remorse during the hearing. His attorneys said they plan to appeal the conviction.

By Anas Abbas

The United States has unveiled its list of countries eligible for the 2025 Visa Waiver Programme (VWP), notably excluding all African nations except the United Kingdom. 

While the UK retains eligibility under certain conditions, countries like Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa are excluded from this visa-free travel initiative.

Among the updates, Romania has been welcomed as a new participant in the 2025 VWP, which largely maintains the existing roster of eligible nations. The US government has focused on enhanced security measures and prioritized countries that demonstrate strong diplomatic relationships and robust border security practices in its selection criteria.

The Visa Waiver Programme, as outlined by the US Bureau of Consular Affairs, allows citizens from participating countries to visit the United States for tourism or business purposes for stays of up to 90 days without needing a visa. 

However, travellers must first secure a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to their journey and meet all other stipulated requirements. Those who prefer to have a visitor visa can still apply for one.

The 2025 programme introduces several policy updates regarding eligibility, adjustments to the list of participating countries, and new travel regulations to streamline visa-free entry for millions of travellers globally.

The list of 40 countries whose citizens can travel to the US without a visa under the 2025 VWP includes: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Romania.

By Uzair Adam

In a ground-breaking advancement for diabetes diagnostics, Nigeria-born Dr Fahad Usman, an Assistant Professor of Optical Engineering Technology in the United States, has introduced a highly sensitive optical biosensor capable of non-invasive diabetes screening.

Dr Usman’s pioneering work focuses on a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensor that detects exhaled breath acetone, a key biomarker for diabetes. This innovative approach offers an alternative to traditional blood glucose tests, which are invasive and often painful.

Dr Usman’s research, published in top journals like Results in Physics and Polymers Journal, presents a novel ternary composite material made from polyaniline, chitosan, and reduced graphene oxide. With enhanced electrical conductivity and thermal stability, this material underpins the SPR biosensor, allowing it to detect acetone concentrations as low as 0.88 parts per billion. 

This collaboration with researchers from Malaysia, France, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. addresses the global diabetes crisis. With over 537 million affected worldwide and projections of 783 million by 2045, this innovation promises a significant impact. According to the National Institutes of Health, over 37 million people in the U.S. are affected by diabetes. 

Due to its non-invasive nature, the optical sensor ensures greater accuracy, sensitivity, and reliability and enhances patient compliance. 

Dr Usman’s work represents a significant leap forward in healthcare innovation. It positions the U.S. at the forefront of global scientific advancements.

This technology offers potential beyond healthcare, with broader industrial applications in optical sensing and materials science.

By Abdurrazak Muktar Makarfi 

Regret is a universal human emotion, a lingering shadow often following negligence or poor decision-making. It can be personal, like not putting in enough effort to achieve a desired goal, or it can be monumental, affecting entire nations or history. From personal experiences to the grand scale of global events, regret reminds us of the consequences of our actions—or inactions.

I, too, am a living witness to this. I aimed for a higher degree classification during my undergraduate studies, hoping to graduate with a Second Class Upper or even a First Class. However, due to a lack of focus and dedication, I had a second-class lower. I realise now that my negligence led to this outcome, which reminds us that what we fail to do today can haunt us tomorrow. In this case, regret is the product of what I did not do rather than what I did.

However, personal regrets are not unique to every person. Even the most powerful, successful, and celebrated figures in history have experienced regret for their actions or oversights. These moments of reflection often come too late, after the damage has been done, and serve as cautionary tales for the rest of us.

Napoleon Bonaparte and the Russian Campaign

One of history’s most infamous military campaigns is Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia in 1812. His quest for dominance over Europe led him to undertake an ill-fated military venture that ended in disaster. Over 400,000 of his troops perished due to a combination of Russian scorched-earth tactics and the brutal winter. While Napoleon was not one to publicly admit fault, accounts suggest he acknowledged the enormity of his mistake. His ambition, unchecked by the realities of war, led to the unravelling of his empire and his eventual exile. In this case, the regret came too late to save his soldiers or his reign.

Robert McNamara and the Vietnam War

In modern history, Robert McNamara’s role in the Vietnam War stands as a significant example of deep, public regret. As U.S. Secretary of Defense, McNamara was a key architect of the war, which led to the loss of tens of thousands of American lives and countless Vietnamese. Years later, in his memoir *In Retrospect* and in interviews, McNamara admitted that the war was a mistake, reflecting on the misguided policies and assumptions that drove U.S. involvement. His regret was genuine, a stark acknowledgement that decisions made without fully considering their consequences can lead to tragedy on an unimaginable scale.

Oskar Schindler: The Regret of Not Doing More

Oskar Schindler is remembered as a hero for saving more than 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust. However, Schindler sincerely regrets not saving more lives despite his extraordinary efforts. He famously broke down in tears after the war, lamenting that he could have sold more of his possessions to rescue more people from the horrors of the Nazi regime. His regret was both real and deeply personal, showing that even those who do good can be haunted by the thought that they could have done more.

Thomas Jefferson and the Paradox of Slavery

Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, is a figure whose legacy is intertwined with regret and contradiction. Although he wrote eloquently about the moral wrongs of slavery, he continued to own slaves throughout his life. In his later years, Jefferson expressed regret for the institution of slavery, calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot” on the American experiment. Yet, he never entirely acted on his convictions, and his words often rang hollow in light of his continued participation in the system he condemned. His regret was intellectual but lacked the moral courage to manifest in his actions.

J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb

Few regrets in history are as profound as J. Robert Oppenheimer’s remorse over the creation of the atomic bomb. As the lead scientist of the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer’s work led to the development of the most destructive weapon ever used in warfare. After witnessing the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oppenheimer famously quoted the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” His regret was not just for the immediate destruction caused by the bomb but also for the moral implications of unleashing such power on humanity. He spent much of his later life advocating against further development of nuclear weapons, but the legacy of his creation haunted him until his death.

The Lessons of Regret

What can we learn from these stories? Whether in personal or historical contexts, regret often arises when we fail to align with our values or ignore the consequences of our decisions. Napoleon’s ambition, McNamara’s overconfidence, Schindler’s sense of responsibility, Jefferson’s moral paradox, and Oppenheimer’s scientific pursuit—all illustrate the different forms that regret can take.

In my own case, I can see that my negligence in my studies was not just a matter of missed marks but of missed opportunities to reach my full potential. The grades I received reflected not just academic performance but also personal responsibility. Regret teaches us to confront the results of our choices and, perhaps more importantly, to make better decisions going forward.

In the end, regret is not just about what we did but about what we failed to do when it mattered most. While it’s a heavy burden to carry, it also offers a powerful lesson: that attention, dedication, and foresight can often prevent us from looking back in sorrow.

Abdurrazak Muktar Makarfi wrote via prof4true1@gmail.com.