By Nkiruka Nnorom

Nigeria’s foreign policy experts are pushing back against Washington’s latest playbook after a U.S. congressional panel urged Abuja to dump Russian military gear and curb Chinese influence.

The U.S Congress had in the final recommendations to the White House on measures to end persecution against Christians in Nigeria urged the federal government to sever military ties with Russia and curb rising Chinese influence in the country.

They claimed that China engages in illegal mining and pays protection money to the Fulani Militia.

As part of the recommendations, they called on the federal government and its US counterpart to: “Strike a bilateral agreement to protect vulnerable Christian communities from violent persecution, eliminate jihadist terror activity in the region, further economic cooperation, and counter adversaries in the region, including the Chinese Communist Party and Russian Federation.”

They urged Nigeria to continue and expand security cooperation with the United States, including by divesting from Russian military equipment for American military equipment through sales and financing and counteract “the hostile foreign exploitation of Chinese illegal mining operations and their destabilizing practice of paying protection money to Fulani militias.”

But in their reaction to the recommendation, Dr. Joseph Ochogwu, Director General, Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR) and Prof. Femi Otubanjo, Research Professor at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, argued that the recommendations missed the point and overstepped it.

They stressed Nigeria’s sovereignty and long-standing strategic autonomy, a non-aligned course that keeps the U.S, UK and Europe as partners, while maintaining ties with China and Russia.

Ochogwu frames the congressional note as just that—a note, not a diktat—while Otubanjo calls the Russia-China preconditions political blackmail, insisting real help should focus on disarming militias and protecting farmers, not on forcing Abuja to choose sides.

Speaking, Ochogwu noted that the U.S. Congress recommendations were only legislative input, not binding policy, arguing that Nigeria’s executive “weighs ground realities”.

According to him, Nigeria decides its own partnerships, just as the U.S., China and Russia keep trading and talking despite rivalries.

“The people who went to the field have the right to submit their reports, but again, in practical terms, international relations or diplomacy doesn’t work that way.

“So, those in the House can send their report, just like any legislature can send their resolution, make recommendations and all that, but the executive branch knows what is on ground, and they can make their own decisions based on the reality on ground,” he said.

“The U.S remains our strategic partner for years, just like the United Kingdom and other European countries, so also the Chinese, as well as Russia and we maintain a balance of what we call strategic autonomy as a major policy drive. In the Cold War era, we were non-aligned,” Ochogwu added.

He said the point wasn’t to reject Washington but to keep a balanced, independent foreign policy that welcomes support from any well-meaning partner.

In his submission, Prof. Otubanjo urges focus on real security fixes, saying that the report mixed genuine security advice – disarm Fulani militias, protect farmers, and early-warning systems – with political preconditions that tie U.S aid to Nigeria dropping Russia and China relations.

He called the Russia/China demands “paranoid” U.S. rivalry baggage, stating that Nigeria’s non-aligned tradition means it keeps plural relations and shouldn’t be blackmailed.

Calling for focus on real security fixes, Otubanjo said the bottomline was to accept helpful bilateral security cooperation, and reject conditions that force Abuja to sever other partnerships.

On the claims of Chinese engaging in illegal mining, he said that illegal Chinese mining is a criminal matter, not a diplomatic one, arguing that Nigeria was already moving to regulate mining.

“We are not aligned to anybody. We have a plurality of interests; we have a plurality of relations.

Therefore, in order to help Nigeria to fight insurgency, it should not be conditional. It should not be based on eliminating Russia and China. Russia and China have done nothing to hurt us, except those miners that are encouraging the militia, which you can deal with. And the Nigerian government is dealing with it,” Otubanjo said.

However, Femi Ojumu, a foreign policy analyst, argued that Nigeria’s long-standing non-aligned stance no longer works.

He pointed to three pressures, including shifting geopolitics and weaker international law; direct US actions – Trump’s CPC label, a December 25, 2025 strike in Sokoto and growing US military deployments in Nigeria; as well as Washington’s unmatched global power.

Ojumu said Abuja will have to tilt toward US strategic and economic priorities over those of China and Russia, even if that strains sovereignty, because sovereignty means little if it can’t protect Nigerians’ lives and welfare.