Opinion
NATO As Nations Aligned To Terrorise Others
In a recent video clip, Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, narrated a worrisome and instructive episode thus: During the crisis in Libya, African Union (AU) gave a committee of six African presidents a mandate to look for a solution for the Libyan problems. On one occasion, five African presidents and a representative of the sixth took a flight from Nouakchott, Mauritania and headed to Tripoli, Libya to further the negotiations. Midway in the flight, NATO operatives intercepted the flight on radio and ordered the committee to go back. Given the power of NATO vis-a-vis its antecedents, that was an order with a potent threat of dire consequences including a possible midair “accident”. Cowed, the flight returned to Nouakchott and no further visible efforts were made in that regard, I would say that was obviously an act of terrorism. Subsequently, Libyan president, Muammar Gaddafi, was humiliated and assassinated thereby bringing an end to his patriotic and Pan-Africanist dream of a united and economically strong African continent
Today, Libya is devastated and Gaddafi’s dream of an African continental monetary system is dead to the relief of IMF. Meanwhile, Gaddafi was a God-fearing and highly patriotic pan-African leader whose government had one of the most people-friendly public policies and who dreamed of emancipating the African continent from domination by the West. Gaddafi will go down in history as a Libyan revolutionary, politician and political theorist who ruled Libya with love from 1969 until 2011, when he was assassinated by US sponsored rebel forces. With one US President after another reneging on the US promise not to extend the frontiers of NATO eastwards and NATO having systematically inched to the backyard of Russia and waging what is obviously a US proxy war with Russia, it has become crystal clear to objective observers of global affairs that NATO is nothing other than an instrument of US expansionism. A cursory view of the origins of the war in Ukraine shows that the US and its NATO allies played a crucial role in the events that precipitated the war.
With NATO allies struggling to outdo each other in providing the Ukraine forces with military materiel, it has become obvious to the world that Russia is, in actuality, waging war with NATO, not Ukraine. In 2022, Fareed Zakaria averred on CNN that the West is collectively waging economic war on Russia on a scale that is hitherto unimaginable. While it would be hyperbolic to say that there is Third World War, the point remains that, by arming Ukraine to the teeth, the West, aligned under the umbrella of NATO, is collectively fighting Russia albeit by proxy. These accounts and the current evil convergence on West Africa informed the new interpretation of the acronym NATO as Nations Aligned to Terrorise Others. Under the shield of Ukraine, NATO has embarked on acts that pose existential threats to Russia; acts that are reminiscent of the Cuban crises of the early 60s, which President Kennedy of the US swiftly reacted to and, in response to which, President Nikita Khrushchev of the defunct USSR ordered immediate withdrawal; acts that Putin and his colleagues repeatedly protested about for many years and the US with its NATO allies in tow persisted.
The US has insisted on systematically expanding the territorial reach of NATO to the doorsteps of Russia and this has climaxed in definite moves to bring Ukraine into the fold of NATO, thereby making Ukraine a western bulwark smack in the skin of Russia. Meanwhile, the US has overtly decried interventionism and territorial expansionism in the name of global peace. In his seventh State of the Union Address to the US Congress on December 2, 1823, James Monroe (1758-1831), the 5th President of the US, enunciated what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potential hostile act against the US. At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence. Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a threat to US security.
The doctrine furthered that the US would in turn recognise and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries. Ever since, the US has always taken a particular interest in its closest neighbours— the nations of the Western Hemisphere. What manner of interest a curious mind asks. Throughout US history, Washington DC has overthrown the government of many countries whose leadership did not find favour with the US. The reality is that while US proclaims itself as the Global Defender of Democracy, the fact remains that the US has toppled many democratically elected presidents across the world over the years. A case in point is that of Chile. In 1973, a populist and highly patriotic candidate named Salvador Allende won the election by a clear margin but US President Nixon did not like Allende for the reason Allende fought for his poor and the working people of Chile. Allende believed that the people of Chile should benefit from the copper mines but Nixon preferred a situation where US corporations controlled the mines.
Nixon was fixated and vigorously fought for the domination of developing countries so corporate US will control the resources. Allende was overthrown and killed and, in his place, a dictator by name General Pinochet was installed and corporate America had a free hand in Chile. The above philosophical stance and behaviour in the international arena were symptomatic of Britain, France and other colonial masters in the 19th Century. The tragedy is that the philosophy and behaviour have not changed till date. Today, that philosophy finds expression in the actions of NATO. Today, the US, France, Britain and their allies in NATO on one hand and Russia and China on the other hand, are spoiling for confrontation in Africa for the simple reason of the control of the mineral resources of the continent. It would not come as a surprise if the Third World War is fought on the soil of the Third World. In view of these, can anyone rightly fault the reference to NATO as Nations Aligned to Terrorise Others?
By: Jason Osai
Osai is a Professor of Development Studies, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
