On the Historical and Ongoing Exploitation of Africa and the True Motives Behind U.S. Involvement in Nigeria
By Al-Amin Isa
Dear President Trump,
Long before America existed, the region that is now called Nigeria was home to flourishing civilizations with their own systems of art, technology, religion, trade, and governance.
Nigeria was not a wilderness waiting for “civilization” — it was a mosaic of kingdoms, empires, and stateless societies, each with its own name, identity, and political order. It was a tapestry of independent civilizations, some of the most advanced in precolonial Africa.
Among its peoples — Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Kanuri, Tiv, Nupe, Jukun, Ibibio, Edo, Ijaw, and others — existed well-organized societies whose histories are older than Nigeria itself. These were not “tribes” in chaos, as colonial propaganda once claimed, but established civilizations with deep spiritual values, innovation, and sophisticated governance.
The Civilizations Before Colonialism
The Nok Civilization (in present-day Kaduna and Plateau States) was one of the earliest iron-using cultures in the world — contemporary with early Greece and older than Rome.
At Igbo-Ukwu (in Anambra State), archaeologists uncovered bronze artifacts so advanced that early European researchers doubted their antiquity.
Benin City had organized urban planning and drainage systems before most European capitals did, and its bronze art astonished the world.
Kanem-Bornu and the Hausa city-states of Kano and Katsina were international centers of learning, commerce, and Islamic scholarship — long before the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776.
In short, the civilizations of the region now known as Nigeria are thousands of years older than the United States, whose own history is built largely on European Enlightenment philosophy and colonial expansion.
The Berlin Conference and the Partition of Africa
These flourishing African societies coexisted peacefully until the Berlin Conference — also known as the Congo Conference or West Africa Conference — which took place from November 15, 1884, to February 26, 1885.
Convened by Otto von Bismarck of Germany, the conference formalized the partition of Africa, carving the continent into colonial possessions without the consent or participation of Africans.
This act of geopolitical greed redesigned Africa’s destiny to serve European interests. The arbitrary borders drawn in Berlin ignored ethnic, cultural, and religious realities, laying the foundation for decades of conflict and instability — effects that still haunt the continent today.
From Colonialism to Neo-Colonialism
Although most African nations gained political independence between the 1950s and 1970s, true sovereignty remained elusive. Economic and political control stayed firmly in the hands of external powers — what Kwame Nkrumah aptly called “neo-colonialism.”
Africa’s wealth — oil, gold, cobalt, lithium, uranium, and fertile land — continues to enrich multinational corporations headquartered in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels.
In Nigeria, Niger, the D.R. Congo, and Angola, Western oil and mining companies dominate production. In Francophone Africa, nations are still forced to deposit up to 50% of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury, a colonial relic of the CFA franc system.
Institutions like the IMF and World Bank dictate economic policy, prioritizing debt repayment and austerity over education, health, and infrastructure. Africa thus remains trapped in a vicious cycle — exporting raw materials and importing finished goods, ensuring dependence and poverty.
Economic Control Through Policy and Force
After independence, financial institutions replaced colonial governors. Corporate lobbying in Washington, Paris, and London shaped policies to keep Africa a supplier of resources and a market for Western goods.
The IMF and World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Programs of the 1980s devastated local industries, education, and healthcare. “Aid” became a tool of influence, with hidden conditions tied to trade privileges and military access.
Leaders who resisted Western control — Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, Kwame Nkrumah, and others — were overthrown or assassinated, while those who complied were protected, regardless of corruption or repression.
The United States and Its Share of Responsibility
The United States, which attended the Berlin Conference as an observer alongside Britain, France, and Germany, cannot escape moral responsibility for the lasting consequences of Africa’s partition.
The same pattern of interference continues today — foreign powers fund and arm rival factions under the guise of “counterterrorism” or “stabilization,” securing access to strategic minerals and political influence.
In February 2025, U.S. Congressman Scott Perry publicly alleged that USAID (United States Agency for International Development) had been funding terrorist organizations, including Boko Haram in Nigeria.
This statement confirmed a long-held suspicion that Western interests are entangled in Nigeria’s instability. Apart from a weak denial by the U.S. Embassy, there has been no official congressional probe to verify or refute Perry’s claims — an omission that raises further concern about U.S. complicity.
On U.S. Military Interventions and Hidden Motives
Mr. President, the question arises: How can an accused sit as a judge in his own case?
The U.S. continues to present itself as a defender of democracy and religious freedom, yet its record in Africa shows otherwise. It positions itself as a savior of “persecuted Christians” in Nigeria while being the backer, sponsor, and enabler of the same conflicts it claims to fight.
If the U.S. military were genuinely coming to eliminate insurgents and restore peace, Nigerians would rejoice. But history tells another story — a pattern of interventions that destabilize nations under the pretext of liberation, humanitarian aid, or democracy, while advancing geopolitical and economic control.
The U.S. AFRICOM (Africa Command) extends American military reach under the banner of “anti-terrorism,” ensuring control over strategic regions. France already maintains military bases in West Africa, manipulating local politics, while global narratives about “poor Africa” justify continued dependency and intervention.
Evidence From U.S. Research
According to research by the RAND Corporation, the success of U.S. military interventions depends on achieving clear and realistic political goals. Yet, across 145 interventions from 1898 to 2016, most achieved little lasting success.
“Success” often means removing a regime or delivering aid — not solving the deeper issues of governance, economy, or social cohesion.
Across the 20th and 21st centuries, U.S. interventions have repeatedly served strategic, political, and economic interests, rather than peace or democracy. Only a handful of countries — fewer than five globally — can be said to have achieved lasting stability after U.S. intervention.
A Final Word
So, Mr. President, before you authorize the dropping of bombs on innocent and defenseless Nigerians, understand this:
Behind the noise about a so-called “Christian Genocide” lies the hidden agenda of the United States and its Western allies — to seize control of Nigeria’s vast mineral resources under the pretext of humanitarian intervention.
Nigeria does not need liberation by those who once enslaved and still exploit her. What Africa needs is justice, partnership, and respect — not paternalism, puppetry, or plunder.
