By Azeez Adelani

When the United States government announced Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” and went further to describe it as a nation in degeneration and “disgrace”, it stirred both anger and applause at home and abroad. While some Nigerians welcomed the remarks as validation of their frustrations, majority of us viewed them as an insult to national pride. But beyond emotion, the declaration deserves deeper analysis. It is not shameful for Nigeria to insist on its dignity; what would be shameful is for us as a people to absorb external condemnation uncritically or to allow it to justify new forms of interference. Nigeria must respond with clarity, composure, and a renewed understanding of its place in the world.

Our security challenges are undeniable. The country has endured a decade and a half of violent insurgency, banditry, and communal bloodshed. The human cost is staggering: tens of thousands killed, millions displaced, and entire communities uprooted. Yet the narrative often pushed by foreign observers, particularly the media, dangerously simplifies these realities into a faith-based binary of “Muslims killing Christians”, thereby distorting the nature of our internal conflict. The truth is that Nigerian Muslims have also suffered immense casualties, often more than any other group in the country.

Between 2009 and 2015 alone, Boko Haram and its affiliates carried out over a thousand attacks targeting mosques, Islamic scholars, and Muslim civilians who refused to align with their extremist ideology. The 2010 Eid bombing in Abuja, which claimed scores of Muslim lives during prayer, remains one of the most heinous acts of terror in Nigeria’s history. Similar massacres occurred in Borno, Yobe, Kano, and Zamfara, where entire Friday congregations were wiped out. Yet these atrocities drew little outrage from Washington or its Western allies and international media. It was not until certain factions turned their violence toward international interests and the narrative suddenly attracted the world’s attention. This selective empathy exposes the geopolitical lens through which Western capitals view African crises as a lens that privileges political symbolism over human universality.

Nigeria’s tragedy, therefore, cannot be reduced to religion. It is beyond that scepticism. It is a symptom of a state that is still grappling with the fragmented structure inherited from British colonialism, a structure that institutionalised division, fostered weak governance, and left behind boundaries without cohesion. Our national project has been a struggle to transform this artificial framework into a functional modern state. That challenge requires introspection and not foreign lectures from Washington.

Equally concerning is the growing influence of certain foreign-funded NGOs and activist networks that shape public narratives in Nigeria via the traditional and social media. While civil society is vital to democracy, the sources of funding and the agendas they carry deserve scrutiny. Some organisations operate as Trojan horses – amplifying crises, staging advocacy campaigns that mirror foreign talking points, and lobbying international actors to intervene in domestic affairs. Nigeria must begin to probe the financial flows sustaining these entities. Transparency and accountability in the non-governmental sector are essential for national security. No sovereign state can permit external actors to manipulate its internal discourse under the banner of human rights or humanitarianism. Patriotism demands vigilance not only against armed insurgents but also against ideological infiltration financed from abroad.

Nigeria’s response to its current predicament must therefore be multidimensional and not just words via press statement but blending domestic reform with strategic autonomy. The first step is to end the culture of dependency on foreign aid. External assistance, though often wrapped in generous language, undermines initiative and policy independence. A nation that lives on handouts cannot dictate its destiny. The examples of Singapore and China after World War II shows how disciplined leadership, strategic planning, and industrial policy can transform aid-dependent societies into global powerhouses. China in particular rebuilt itself from the ruins of war by prioritising education, manufacturing, and technological innovation while maintaining a firm grip on national sovereignty. It accepted foreign investment but on its own terms, ensuring technology transfer, infrastructure growth, and internal capacity-building. Nigeria must study this model carefully. We must learn how to absorb global opportunity without surrendering policy space.

The second step is to harness and industrialise the nation’s natural resources domestically. Decades of exporting crude oil and importing refined products must end. The same applies to the emerging rare-earth sector. The Nasarawa project should not become another enclave economy dominated by foreign interests. It must serve as a model for local beneficiation, transparent governance, and community empowerment. Resource wealth should be a ladder for development, not a leash for exploitation.

Thirdly, Nigeria must build a security architecture that is both professional and self-reliant. The Nigerian Armed Forces have demonstrated remarkable courage despite limited resources. What they require is modernisation, intelligence coordination, and civilian oversight, not foreign troops on our soil. Security cooperation with friendly nations is acceptable, but never at the expense of sovereignty. The ultimate goal should be to ensure that no foreign power can claim to protect Nigerians better than Nigeria itself.

Fourth, foreign policy must return to its foundational doctrine of non-alignment and mutual respect. Nigeria should engage with all partners including the United States, China, Europe, India, and others, but strictly on terms of reciprocity. Our diplomacy must be guided by the principle of equality, not dependence. This requires professionalising our foreign service, strengthening regional diplomacy within ECOWAS and the African Union, and reasserting Nigeria’s role as a stabilising force on the continent.

At the same time, domestic governance must improve. Corruption, poor service delivery, and elite impunity weaken Nigeria’s voice abroad. National renewal begins at home: building credible institutions, investing in education, and fostering a patriotic public service. Without internal reform, external respect will remain elusive.

Nigeria must also reclaim its narrative internationally. Too often, foreign media and think-tanks portray the country through a lens of dysfunction, amplifying failure while ignoring our progress. Nigerian scholars, journalists, and policymakers must proactively tell the nation’s story, not as propaganda, but as balanced truth. The struggle for perception is as strategic as the struggle for territory. If Nigeria allows others to define its image, it will also allow them to define its future.

What then should be our collective posture? It is time for Nigeria to take its rightful position as a leading power in the Global South, confident, self-reliant, and assertive. We must reject the negativity emanating from Washington or any other capital that seeks to reduce us to perpetual dependence and failure. We must build a developmental state anchored on disciplined governance, indigenous innovation, and regional cooperation. Above all, we must rediscover faith in our own capabilities.

Certainly, Nigeria’s problems are serious, but they are not insurmountable. The same resilience that has kept this country together through civil war, dictatorship, and economic downturns can drive a new renaissance. The choice before us is stark: to remain a subject of external pity or to rise as an agent of our destiny. Every nation that outsourced its security to outsiders ended up losing both security and freedom. The nations that prospered — China, Singapore, Malaysia, India — are those that turned inward first, then engaged the world from a position of strength.

When a foreign leader calls Nigeria “disgraced,” it is not a prophecy but it is a provocation. The real disgrace would be to internalise such words and forget who we are. Nigeria is not perfect, but it is capable. It is imperfectly built, yet unbreakably resilient. Its diversity, long portrayed as a weakness, is its greatest resource. What Nigeria needs is not foreign approval but disciplined leadership, visionary governance, and a citizenry determined to build rather than blame.

Let no one be deceived: the United States and its allies will always pursue their interests first and so must Nigeria. The era of moral dependency must end. We must craft a national philosophy that balances openness with self-protection answer pragmatism with principle. The future belongs to those who define their terms of engagement, not those who are defined by others.

As long as Nigeria remains sovereign, it must never allow any foreign power, disguised as a protector or redeemer, to dictate its destiny. The declaration from Washington should not shame us — it should awaken us. Our redemption will not come from abroad but from within: from Abuja’s policy clarity, Lagos’s enterprise, Kano’s resilience, and Port Harcourt’s industry. For now, we have only one country and we must protect it, defend it, and believe in it at all cost.