Political Panorama Issue No 26

This article forms the third and final part of Political Panorama with Ola Olateju, exploring the classification of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) by President Donald Trump and the geopolitical and economic undercurrents shaping that decision.

When the U.S. President Donald J. Trump recently designated Nigeria as a CPC for religious freedom violations, reactions within Nigeria were sharply divided. To some, it was yet another example of Western moral grandstanding; to others, it was a justified rebuke for the persistent killings across the Middle Belt. Yet beneath this public debate lies a deeper and more complex story - one that is less about religion and more about the global struggle for control over Nigeria’s mineral wealth.

A close mapping of northern Nigeria’s violence, resource distribution, and foreign economic activity reveals that Trump’s policy, though wrapped in the language of Christian protection, is a reflection of a broader economic cold war between the United States and China. Nigeria, tragically, stands as one of the battlegrounds in this new global contest.

Mr. Henry Oladele Alake
Minister for Solid Minerals Development

The Geography of Blood and Wealth

Examining Nigeria’s northern and north-central states, where terrorism, banditry, and farmer-herder conflicts are most concentrated, reveals a disturbing overlap. Many of these same regions sit atop rich mineral deposits critical to the 21st-century global economy.

Zamfara State, infamous for banditry and mass killings since 2016, holds Nigeria’s largest gold and tantalite reserves. According to the Nigerian Geological Survey Agency (NGSA), illegal and artisanal mining is rampant, often involving Chinese operators working through local proxies.

Niger State, frequently attacked by bandits and militants, contains significant deposits of gold, tin, and lithium essential for electric car batteries and semiconductor production.

Plateau State, long symbolized as the heart of Nigeria’s “Christian-Muslim conflict,” is also rich in columbite, tin, lead, and zinc minerals historically extracted since colonial times.

Benue and Nasarawa States, scenes of recurring farmer-herder clashes, hold large reserves of limestone, barite, gemstones, and alluvial gold along their river basins.

Kaduna, Katsina, and Taraba all plagued by kidnappings, terrorism, or communal violence possess strategic deposits of nickel, manganese, and lithium.

When these dots are connected, the pattern is unmistakable. The geography of violence mirrors the geography of mineral wealth. What is framed in the media as ethno-religious conflict is, in essence, a struggle for territorial control - an economic war masquerading as faith-based violence.

The Shadow of Chinese Expansion

Since the early 2000s, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has expanded across Africa, securing access to vital minerals and infrastructure corridors. Nigeria, as Africa’s most populous nation, quickly became a priority target. Chinese firms have penetrated both the formal and informal mining sectors, sometimes through official joint ventures, but often via opaque artisanal routes.

In Zamfara, the state government has admitted that Chinese nationals were arrested at illegal mining sites guarded by armed militias. In Nasarawa and Niger, residents recount nightly convoys of trucks escorted by security personnel moving unregistered ores to private depots. The profits, often laundered through middlemen in Dubai, eventually find their way to Asian markets. The result is an illicit mineral economy draining billions from Nigeria annually.

China’s motives are not moral or religious, but they are strategic. Its manufacturing industries depend heavily on rare earths, gold, and lithium resources crucial to its dominance in electronics, renewable energy, and defense technologies. With domestic reserves dwindling, Africa’s untapped minerals have become Beijing’s lifeline. Nigeria’s weak governance, corruption, and unregulated spaces provide ideal conditions for exploitation.

America’s Countermove: Moralism as Geopolitics

To interpret Trump’s CPC designation, one must understand how the U.S. increasingly wields human rights diplomacy as a strategic tool. During the Cold War, Washington invoked anti-communism to counter the Soviet Union; today, it invokes religious freedom to counter China’s global reach.

Trump’s 2025 declaration that Nigeria persecutes Christians followed soon after a quiet meeting with China’s president in Tokyo reportedly dominated by discussions about global supply chains and mineral security. Days later, Trump pivoted to Nigeria, condemning “Christian genocide” and “religious cleansing.” The timing was too deliberate to be coincidental.

Behind the rhetoric lay a clear geopolitical signal. China’s growing footprint in Nigeria’s mineral corridors had become a U.S. security concern. Intelligence likely indicated that Chinese-linked operators were funding or exploiting Nigeria’s rural instability. Thus, by invoking “Christian persecution,” Washington sought to pressure Abuja not for moral reform, but for strategic realignment.

The Political Economy of Insecurity

If terrorism in Nigeria were purely ideological, it would not align so neatly with mineral geography. Yet evidence suggests otherwise. Across Zamfara, Niger, Benue, and Plateau, violence has depopulated entire communities particularly Christian farming ones in resource-rich zones. The pattern resembles strategic depopulation - displace the locals, silence resistance, and open the terrain for unchecked extraction.

These armed groups, often depicted as scattered bandits, display increasing sophistication. Reports indicate that militias receive funding and logistics from networks tied to illegal mining. In effect, terrorism has evolved into an instrument of economic capture.

This dynamic is not unique to Nigeria. Similar patterns exist in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and Mali where mineral abundance coincides with chronic violence. Economists describe this as the “resource curse” - when natural wealth breeds conflict, corruption, and dependency instead of development.

The Nigerian Elite and the Politics of Complicity

Successive Nigerian governments have often enabled, rather than resisted, this exploitation. A striking example was the proposed National Water Resources Bill under President Muhammadu Buhari. Framed as administrative reform, it sought to centralize federal control over all inland waterways and adjoining lands many of which lie atop alluvial gold and lithium belts in the Middle Belt.

Civil society groups and analysts suspected foreign influence behind the bill, particularly from Chinese-linked firms seeking easier access to mineral corridors. Although public outrage stalled its passage, its periodic resurrection reflects how deeply foreign interests have penetrated Nigeria’s policy system.

Meanwhile, sections of the Nigeria's political, bureaucratic and traditional leaders have always struck private deals with foreign miners, exchanging silence or cooperation for royalties and kickbacks. The result is tragic - citizens bear the cost of violence and displacement, while the state loses both wealth and sovereignty.

Trump’s “Christian” Narrative as Economic Diplomacy

As earlier pointed out in the first two articles on this subject matter, Trump’s portrayal of Nigeria’s crisis as “Christian persecution” resonated with his conservative voter base, but also doubled as economic diplomacy. It justified Washington’s closer scrutiny of Nigeria’s mining policies, allowed it to apply diplomatic pressure, and subtly countered China’s resource influence in West Africa.

By invoking religion, the U.S. mobilized global sympathy while concealing its strategic motives. Sanctions or aid conditions linked to the CPC status could be used to push Nigeria toward Western-aligned mining regulations to effectively redirect partnerships away from China.

This fits a broader U.S. pattern of using moral diplomacy to achieve material objectives. Just as human rights were invoked to isolate Russia after Crimea, religious freedom now becomes a tool for constraining Beijing.

America’s Frustration: Funding the Fight, Losing the Prize

For over a decade, the United States has heavily funded Nigeria’s counterterrorism campaign, supplying surveillance aircraft, drones, tactical vehicles, and training through programs such as the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership and the $500 million A-29 Super Tucano deal. Yet insecurity has only worsened, spreading from the Northeast to the Northwest and Middle Belt. From Washington’s viewpoint, this is a profound contradiction. The U.S. invests billions in stabilizing Nigeria, yet China profits from the chaos by expanding its access to mineral zones. In other words, while America funds the firefight, China reaps the ashes by freely mining the very territories that U.S. assistance was meant to pacify.

This paradox has fueled Washington’s resentment. Trump’s CPC designation thus doubles as a moral rebuke and diplomatic retaliation, signalling that the U.S. will no longer subsidise instability that benefits its strategic rival. Nigeria, therefore, owes the US a moral debt of accounting for every dollar and material given by the US government for the purpose of fighting terrorism along those economic corridors

The Blood of the Poor, the Gold of the Powerful

In Shiroro, Batsari, Guma, and Barkin-Ladi, the cost of this invisible war is measured in human lives. Farmers are driven from ancestral lands, while profiteers, both foreign and local dig beneath their feet. Every ounce of smuggled gold from Zamfara or lithium from Nasarawa represents not only stolen wealth but extinguished livelihoods.

Trump’s moral rhetoric touches a real wound, but his remedy targets the wrong disease. He is not defending Nigerian Christians out of empathy; rather, he is defending America’s economic position in the global order. Once again, Nigeria’s tragedy becomes a proxy theatre in the rivalry of superpowers.

The Way Forward: Reclaiming Nigeria’s Sovereignty

Nigeria’s salvation does not lie in choosing between Washington and Beijing. True sovereignty begins by confronting the internal decay that renders the state vulnerable to external manipulation.

To rebuild national strength, Nigeria must first restore institutional capacity, revitalise intelligence services, demilitarise mining zones, and enforce firm control over both local and foreign operators.

A transparent and accountable mining framework is crucial. Every license must be traceable and publicly accessible, with illegal mining treated as a national security offence.

Equally, displaced communities must be rehabilitated and empowered to participate in local governance and resource management. Economic justice must accompany security reform.

Finally, Nigeria’s foreign policy should be guided by reciprocity, not dependency. Engagement with global powers must be grounded in mutual benefit and national interest and not in deference or desperation.

Only through such deliberate and principled action can Nigeria reclaim its sovereignty and convert its vast natural wealth into true national power.

Conclusion: Nigeria in the Crossfire

Trump’s classification of Nigeria as a persecutor of Christians was never purely about saving souls. It was about saving markets, ensuring that the United States, not China, maintains leverage over Africa’s next frontier of mineral wealth. The tragedy is that, once again, Nigerian lives have become expendable in a war of empires.

The blood spilt in Benue’s valleys, Plateau’s ruins, and Zamfara’s forests is not merely religious blood. It is economic blood that serves as the price of a resource war disguised as sectarian conflict.

Until Nigeria awakens to this reality, it will remain a pawn in the new global cold war. A nation wealthy enough to attract empires, yet weak enough to be conquered without a single shot fired.