November 4, 2025 • 14 mins
In this episode we unpack a major shift in global diplomacy: China’s decision to publicly support Nigeria’s government in the face of US pressure and threats of sanctions or military action. We explore how China’s stance on non-interference and strategic partnership with Nigeria affects the US-Africa balance, what it means for alleged Christian genocide claims, and how the regional body ECOWAS is responding.
You’ll hear:
What triggered US President Trump’s declaration of Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” and his threat of possible military intervention.
China’s Foreign Ministry statement rejecting outside interference under religion/human-rights pretexts and framing its support for Nigeria.
How ECOWAS is rejecting the genocide claims, the broader security context in Nigeria, and implications for religious violence.
Why this matters for US-China rivalry in Africa, Nigeria’s foreign policy choices, and global geopolitics.
Listen until the end for expert insights on what’s next for Nigeria, China’s Africa strategy, and the US role in religious freedom diplomacy.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
You’ll hear:
What triggered US President Trump’s declaration of Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” and his threat of possible military intervention.
China’s Foreign Ministry statement rejecting outside interference under religion/human-rights pretexts and framing its support for Nigeria.
How ECOWAS is rejecting the genocide claims, the broader security context in Nigeria, and implications for religious violence.
Why this matters for US-China rivalry in Africa, Nigeria’s foreign policy choices, and global geopolitics.
Listen until the end for expert insights on what’s next for Nigeria, China’s Africa strategy, and the US role in religious freedom diplomacy.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate today. We're tackling, well, one of
the most difficult questions in international relations, really, how nations
should classify and respond to mass internal violence, especially when
religious identity seems to be a key target. The specific
discussion focuses on Nigeria following a let's say, pretty dramatic
(00:23):
escalation in US policy.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
That's right. The core of the issue, as I see it,
stems from the US President Donald Trump designating Nigeria as
a Country of Particular Concern or CPC, citing alleged Christian genocide.
And this wasn't just you know, a statement.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
No exactly. It led immediately to talk of sanctions and
the very provocative step of asking the Pentagon to and
I quote map out a possible plan of attack.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
And that step is precisely where the conflict lies, isn't it.
I mean, that designation plus the military planning threat, it
drew immediate and frank quite firm opposition. We saw pushback
from China, Nigeria's a comprehensive strategic partner, and an equally
strong rejection from the Regional Authority ECOOS.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Right, So the fundamental disagreement here, it's complex, it's not
really about denying the horrific violence happening in Nigeria. Nobody
denies that. It's about how we classify that violence and
what the appropriate global response should be. I'll be arguing
for the legitimacy of this strong US led interventionist stance
based on these grave claims of mass slaughter and the
(01:31):
perceived need for immediate global pressure.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
I'll be arguing against this external interference. My position is
that the action is unwarranted potentially counterproductive, even because it
rests on a highly contested and I think dangerous claim
of Christian genocide. It's a claim explicitly rejected by regional
experts and the Nigerian government itself, who maintain the violence
(01:56):
is essentially non discriminatory terrorism affecting everyone.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Okay, So my position is really anchored in the necessity
of international protection when atrocities seem to reach a level
suggesting well an existential threat to a particular group. The
US President's actions were quite forceful response to these widespread reports,
reports detailing the killing of quote thousands of Christians, and
(02:23):
this urgent assertion that Christianity faces an existential threat in Nigeria,
primarily from radical Islamists and other armed groups. When a
world leader says something must be done about atrocities and
directs Congress to investigate, directs the Pentagon, that reflects a
core duty often framed under the responsibility to protect or
(02:44):
R two P doctrine. Whether we look at Bokoharam and
Icewap in the northeast or those escalating farmer herder clashes
in places like Plateau and Beneway, the alleged focused nature
of the threat against Christian communities seems to warrant that
highest level of attention and leverage. I see why you
think that the classification might be an overreach, But let
me give you a different perspective. The sheer scale and
(03:07):
the perception of targeted killing it kind of overrides sovereignty
concerns when mass death is on the table.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
HM, I come at it from a different way. For me.
The accuracy of the diagnosis that's paramount before you even
consider intervention, especially intervention involving threats of sanctions and military force.
The US President's classification and these resulting threats, they're being
rejected precisely because they hinge on this contested and frankly
(03:35):
dangerous interpretation of events as Christian genocide. Both the Nigerian
president and ECOWAS have explicitly pushed back. ECOWAS clearly stated
the idea that terrorists are only targeting one group is
quote false and dangerous. They consistently confirm the violence's non
discriminatory affecting innocent civilians of all religious denominations, including Muslims, Christians,
(03:58):
and people of other religions. And we also have to
consider the geopolitical fallout here this CPC designation. It immediately
puts Nigeria on a blacklist, potentially risking foreign aid investment. China,
as Nigeria's key strategic partner, firmly opposes this US stance.
They've explicitly said they reject any country's interference in other
(04:20):
countries' internal affairs under the pretext of religion and human rights,
and they specifically condemn the wanton threat of sanction and
use of force. For China, this isn't just abstract principle.
It's about non interference, yes, but also protecting their very
significant strategic investments in Nigeria. So classifying this as genocide,
especially against the regional consensus, it really looks like a
(04:42):
pretext for interference.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Okay, let's drill down on that definitional and legal problem,
because I agree this is where policy execution can get
very tricky. When the US uses the word genocide or
implies it through these actions, it does invoke profound legal
and moral.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Obligations exactly, and you seem to be relying on the
strict formal legal definition of genocide to dismiss the US action.
The UN Genocide Conventions Article two is extremely precise. It
requires specific intent, the intent to destroy in whole or
in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This
(05:20):
makes genocide a crime of specific intent, which places a
huge burden of proof. What concrete evidence from the material
we have or generally reported from the North, Central and
Northeast suggests that these disparate groups of perpetrators bocal, haram ISWAP,
those involved in communal violence actually share a unified, systematic
(05:43):
intent to destroy the Christian population as such, in whole
or in part. The very fact that regional bodies like
ECOOSS and independent reports consistently say the violence is shared
it targets Muslims and Christians alike that fundamentally undermine the
classification the US is using as its justification for intervention,
(06:04):
doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
That's an interesting point, though I would frame it slightly differently.
While the legal thresholds are of course critical for any
prosecution in say the ICC, and yes, they stem from
Raphael Lempkin's work back in nineteen forty three when he
coined genocide. The US president's designation serves a political and
arguably a preventative function under international norms. It reflects that
(06:25):
broader duty to prevent and to punish widespread killings. That
duty exists beyond just the strict convention. It's part of
customary international law. What the US is doing is signaling
extreme alarm, even if the root causes are complex poverty,
land disputes, security vacuums. The perception of a highly focused
threat to specific Christian communities often resulting in these horrific
(06:46):
attacks where hundreds die in places like Plateau and Benu.
That generates the perception of systematic religious cleansing, and that
perception in itself can justify the immediate country of particular
concern designation. It's a political tool. It's meant to force
global attention, unlock specific US policy levers, and demand accountability
(07:08):
from the Nigerian government. Even if the case for legal
genocide prosecution isn't fully built on day one. You know,
the risk of inaction in the face of mass death
might be seen as greater than the risk of mispacification initially.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
But the political utility of a designation is surely negated
if the designation itself is inaccurate and destabilizing, which leads
us right into the core of the second contention, the
actual efficacy and legitimacy of using external threats like sanctions
and military planning against a country that's already fighting terrorism.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Well, from my perspective, the threat of sanctions, maybe withdrawing
military training or aid, even just mapping military options, it
serves a critical purpose. It can function as a necessary deterrent,
and it's arguably part of fulfilling the general international duty
to prevent atrocities. These tools they become essential when the
(08:06):
internal government, despite President Tinubu's stated commitment to tolerance, clearly
is enable to contain the security crisis affecting people across
faiths and regents. The US is trying to inject accountability
that the Nigerian state, perhaps overwhelmed, seems unable to provide internally.
Plus the CPC designation allows targeting specific individuals or entities,
(08:30):
maybe within the security forces, who might be complicit or
just ineffective. It could allow for more surgical pressure, not
just blanket condemnation.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
M I'm just not convinced by that line of reasoning
because the threat is specially the military one feels like
it's being levied against the Nigerian state itself, a government
that is actively, if imperfectly, engaged in counter terrorism against
Bocoharram and isw you risk penalizing a strategic partner for
failing to an incredibly deep seated terrorism and communal violence problem,
(09:04):
one that has regional and even global roots. China's objection
isn't just philosophical. They're worried this jeopardizes regional stability. Think
about it. If Nigeria's economy is crippled by sanctions or
the government is destabilized by these unilateral threats, doesn't that
weaken their ability to fight the insurgents. You could actually
end up empowering the very groups you claim to be
(09:25):
targeting by undermining your counter terrorism partner. And beyond that,
the intelligence driving this dramatic US escalation. It really needs scrutiny.
China specifically points out that this narrative seems rooted in
reports circulating in quote right wing US circles, not necessarily
a consensus of independent monitors or regional experts on the
(09:45):
ground imposing sanctions or making military threats based on potentially
biased religious intelligence that risks destabilizing a necessary partner if
violates sovereignty norms, and it could ultimately harm the very
soviniy millions you aim to protect if it leads to
a collapse of public services or the economy.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Okay. That brings us directly to the third contention, how
we interpret the scale and nature of the violence itself
and why these perceptions are diverging so sharply, I do acknowledge,
as the material does, that the Nigerian government and ECOOSS
are firmed that the violence comes from terrorist groups of
different coloration targeting civilians indiscriminately across religious lines, and.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
That assertion seems to be backed up by empirical checks,
doesn't it. The source material explicitly notes that monitoring groups
tracking the violence state clearly the evidence suggesting Christians are
being killed more often than Muslims, that evidence just doesn't
exist in Nigeria. Overall, we have to respect that regional
analysis in data. Surely, if the violence truly doesn't discriminate
(10:52):
predominantly based on religion, then framing it as a Christian
genocide misdirects global resources, it miss allocates aid, and it
fundamentally misunderstands the incredibly complex drivers of conflict in the
Northeast and North Central States. Those drivers often include things
like land scarcity, climate change impacts, governance failures, not just
(11:15):
religious hatred.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
That's a compelling argument, but have you considered the context
of the specific claims the US President is reacting to.
The designation seems to be a direct reaction to these
detailed reports about the systematic killing of thousands of Christians
that creates a perceived existential threat focused on one group,
rightly or wrongly. Political responses are often driven by that
(11:39):
perception of systematic targeting, especially when you see these focus massacres,
for instance, at tax and Plateau State might be localized, yes,
but devastating enough to look like a pattern of cleansing
to external observers, even if Muslims are also tragically targeted
by the same actors. The perception of systematic religious cleansing
aimed at Christians particularly in specific states where whole villages
(12:03):
are sometimes attacked that warrants the immediate political pressure and
the investigation requested from the House Appropriations Committee.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Option of an existential thread, however politically potent it might be,
surely cannot be the sole basis for leveraging military threats
against a sovereign. Ally, we're talking about invoking genocide, the
highest level of international legal classification, which carries immense weight
(12:31):
and potential consequences, including intervention. If the actual data acknowledged
by regional actors like ECOOS points towards indiscriminate terrorism and
complex communal violence, then the US should be using diplomatic
tools appropriate for those problems terrorism internal security failures, not
(12:52):
the tools reserved for genocide. Misapplying the term just dilutes
its power and risks alienating the very regional partners we
need for any long term solution.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
I maintain that the international community, guided by the imperative
to protect vulnerable populations facing what looks like mass slaughter,
must consider using all available tools that includes strategic pressure
like the CPC designation, when credible reports of an existential
threat arise, even if regional political objections are raised. Perhaps
(13:22):
by strategic rivals like China talking about internal affairs, the
humanitarian urgency derived from the sheer scale of reported deaths
might outweigh the diplomatic discomfort of challenging a sovereign state's
failure to secure its own people.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
And I would summarize by stressing that any international response,
especially when involving threats of force, must be grounded in precise,
definitional clarity. The UN definition of genocide isn't just a guideline.
It's crucial for actions as extreme as military planning, and
such actions must ideally be supported by regional consensus like
(13:57):
that from Ecowas unilateral threats based on contested religious claims,
they undermine sovereignty, they damage necessary counter terrorism partnerships, and
they dangerously misdiagnose a complex internal security problem as targeted
religious genocide, which ultimately prevents finding effective, sustainable solutions.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
This discussion, I think, clearly illustrates the immense difficulty the
global community faces in classifying internal conflict, especially when powerful
external nations hold fundamentally opposing views on the very nature
of the violence.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Absolutely, it demonstrates the incredibly high stakes involved in determining
when and crucially how external intervention might be justified, if
at all, a critical question that certainly remains open for
further debate.
Welcome to the debate today. We're tackling, well, one of
the most difficult questions in international relations, really, how nations
should classify and respond to mass internal violence, especially when
religious identity seems to be a key target. The specific
discussion focuses on Nigeria following a let's say, pretty dramatic
(00:23):
escalation in US policy.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
That's right. The core of the issue, as I see it,
stems from the US President Donald Trump designating Nigeria as
a Country of Particular Concern or CPC, citing alleged Christian genocide.
And this wasn't just you know, a statement.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
No exactly. It led immediately to talk of sanctions and
the very provocative step of asking the Pentagon to and
I quote map out a possible plan of attack.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
And that step is precisely where the conflict lies, isn't it.
I mean, that designation plus the military planning threat, it
drew immediate and frank quite firm opposition. We saw pushback
from China, Nigeria's a comprehensive strategic partner, and an equally
strong rejection from the Regional Authority ECOOS.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Right, So the fundamental disagreement here, it's complex, it's not
really about denying the horrific violence happening in Nigeria. Nobody
denies that. It's about how we classify that violence and
what the appropriate global response should be. I'll be arguing
for the legitimacy of this strong US led interventionist stance
based on these grave claims of mass slaughter and the
(01:31):
perceived need for immediate global pressure.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
I'll be arguing against this external interference. My position is
that the action is unwarranted potentially counterproductive, even because it
rests on a highly contested and I think dangerous claim
of Christian genocide. It's a claim explicitly rejected by regional
experts and the Nigerian government itself, who maintain the violence
(01:56):
is essentially non discriminatory terrorism affecting everyone.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Okay, So my position is really anchored in the necessity
of international protection when atrocities seem to reach a level
suggesting well an existential threat to a particular group. The
US President's actions were quite forceful response to these widespread reports,
reports detailing the killing of quote thousands of Christians, and
(02:23):
this urgent assertion that Christianity faces an existential threat in Nigeria,
primarily from radical Islamists and other armed groups. When a
world leader says something must be done about atrocities and
directs Congress to investigate, directs the Pentagon, that reflects a
core duty often framed under the responsibility to protect or
(02:44):
R two P doctrine. Whether we look at Bokoharam and
Icewap in the northeast or those escalating farmer herder clashes
in places like Plateau and Beneway, the alleged focused nature
of the threat against Christian communities seems to warrant that
highest level of attention and leverage. I see why you
think that the classification might be an overreach, But let
me give you a different perspective. The sheer scale and
(03:07):
the perception of targeted killing it kind of overrides sovereignty
concerns when mass death is on the table.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
HM, I come at it from a different way. For me.
The accuracy of the diagnosis that's paramount before you even
consider intervention, especially intervention involving threats of sanctions and military force.
The US President's classification and these resulting threats, they're being
rejected precisely because they hinge on this contested and frankly
(03:35):
dangerous interpretation of events as Christian genocide. Both the Nigerian
president and ECOWAS have explicitly pushed back. ECOWAS clearly stated
the idea that terrorists are only targeting one group is
quote false and dangerous. They consistently confirm the violence's non
discriminatory affecting innocent civilians of all religious denominations, including Muslims, Christians,
(03:58):
and people of other religions. And we also have to
consider the geopolitical fallout here this CPC designation. It immediately
puts Nigeria on a blacklist, potentially risking foreign aid investment. China,
as Nigeria's key strategic partner, firmly opposes this US stance.
They've explicitly said they reject any country's interference in other
(04:20):
countries' internal affairs under the pretext of religion and human rights,
and they specifically condemn the wanton threat of sanction and
use of force. For China, this isn't just abstract principle.
It's about non interference, yes, but also protecting their very
significant strategic investments in Nigeria. So classifying this as genocide,
especially against the regional consensus, it really looks like a
(04:42):
pretext for interference.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Okay, let's drill down on that definitional and legal problem,
because I agree this is where policy execution can get
very tricky. When the US uses the word genocide or
implies it through these actions, it does invoke profound legal
and moral.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Obligations exactly, and you seem to be relying on the
strict formal legal definition of genocide to dismiss the US action.
The UN Genocide Conventions Article two is extremely precise. It
requires specific intent, the intent to destroy in whole or
in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This
(05:20):
makes genocide a crime of specific intent, which places a
huge burden of proof. What concrete evidence from the material
we have or generally reported from the North, Central and
Northeast suggests that these disparate groups of perpetrators bocal, haram ISWAP,
those involved in communal violence actually share a unified, systematic
(05:43):
intent to destroy the Christian population as such, in whole
or in part. The very fact that regional bodies like
ECOOSS and independent reports consistently say the violence is shared
it targets Muslims and Christians alike that fundamentally undermine the
classification the US is using as its justification for intervention,
(06:04):
doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
That's an interesting point, though I would frame it slightly differently.
While the legal thresholds are of course critical for any
prosecution in say the ICC, and yes, they stem from
Raphael Lempkin's work back in nineteen forty three when he
coined genocide. The US president's designation serves a political and
arguably a preventative function under international norms. It reflects that
(06:25):
broader duty to prevent and to punish widespread killings. That
duty exists beyond just the strict convention. It's part of
customary international law. What the US is doing is signaling
extreme alarm, even if the root causes are complex poverty,
land disputes, security vacuums. The perception of a highly focused
threat to specific Christian communities often resulting in these horrific
(06:46):
attacks where hundreds die in places like Plateau and Benu.
That generates the perception of systematic religious cleansing, and that
perception in itself can justify the immediate country of particular
concern designation. It's a political tool. It's meant to force
global attention, unlock specific US policy levers, and demand accountability
(07:08):
from the Nigerian government. Even if the case for legal
genocide prosecution isn't fully built on day one. You know,
the risk of inaction in the face of mass death
might be seen as greater than the risk of mispacification initially.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
But the political utility of a designation is surely negated
if the designation itself is inaccurate and destabilizing, which leads
us right into the core of the second contention, the
actual efficacy and legitimacy of using external threats like sanctions
and military planning against a country that's already fighting terrorism.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Well, from my perspective, the threat of sanctions, maybe withdrawing
military training or aid, even just mapping military options, it
serves a critical purpose. It can function as a necessary deterrent,
and it's arguably part of fulfilling the general international duty
to prevent atrocities. These tools they become essential when the
(08:06):
internal government, despite President Tinubu's stated commitment to tolerance, clearly
is enable to contain the security crisis affecting people across
faiths and regents. The US is trying to inject accountability
that the Nigerian state, perhaps overwhelmed, seems unable to provide internally.
Plus the CPC designation allows targeting specific individuals or entities,
(08:30):
maybe within the security forces, who might be complicit or
just ineffective. It could allow for more surgical pressure, not
just blanket condemnation.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
M I'm just not convinced by that line of reasoning
because the threat is specially the military one feels like
it's being levied against the Nigerian state itself, a government
that is actively, if imperfectly, engaged in counter terrorism against
Bocoharram and isw you risk penalizing a strategic partner for
failing to an incredibly deep seated terrorism and communal violence problem,
(09:04):
one that has regional and even global roots. China's objection
isn't just philosophical. They're worried this jeopardizes regional stability. Think
about it. If Nigeria's economy is crippled by sanctions or
the government is destabilized by these unilateral threats, doesn't that
weaken their ability to fight the insurgents. You could actually
end up empowering the very groups you claim to be
(09:25):
targeting by undermining your counter terrorism partner. And beyond that,
the intelligence driving this dramatic US escalation. It really needs scrutiny.
China specifically points out that this narrative seems rooted in
reports circulating in quote right wing US circles, not necessarily
a consensus of independent monitors or regional experts on the
(09:45):
ground imposing sanctions or making military threats based on potentially
biased religious intelligence that risks destabilizing a necessary partner if
violates sovereignty norms, and it could ultimately harm the very
soviniy millions you aim to protect if it leads to
a collapse of public services or the economy.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Okay. That brings us directly to the third contention, how
we interpret the scale and nature of the violence itself
and why these perceptions are diverging so sharply, I do acknowledge,
as the material does, that the Nigerian government and ECOOSS
are firmed that the violence comes from terrorist groups of
different coloration targeting civilians indiscriminately across religious lines, and.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
That assertion seems to be backed up by empirical checks,
doesn't it. The source material explicitly notes that monitoring groups
tracking the violence state clearly the evidence suggesting Christians are
being killed more often than Muslims, that evidence just doesn't
exist in Nigeria. Overall, we have to respect that regional
analysis in data. Surely, if the violence truly doesn't discriminate
(10:52):
predominantly based on religion, then framing it as a Christian
genocide misdirects global resources, it miss allocates aid, and it
fundamentally misunderstands the incredibly complex drivers of conflict in the
Northeast and North Central States. Those drivers often include things
like land scarcity, climate change impacts, governance failures, not just
(11:15):
religious hatred.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
That's a compelling argument, but have you considered the context
of the specific claims the US President is reacting to.
The designation seems to be a direct reaction to these
detailed reports about the systematic killing of thousands of Christians
that creates a perceived existential threat focused on one group,
rightly or wrongly. Political responses are often driven by that
(11:39):
perception of systematic targeting, especially when you see these focus massacres,
for instance, at tax and Plateau State might be localized, yes,
but devastating enough to look like a pattern of cleansing
to external observers, even if Muslims are also tragically targeted
by the same actors. The perception of systematic religious cleansing
aimed at Christians particularly in specific states where whole villages
(12:03):
are sometimes attacked that warrants the immediate political pressure and
the investigation requested from the House Appropriations Committee.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Option of an existential thread, however politically potent it might be,
surely cannot be the sole basis for leveraging military threats
against a sovereign. Ally, we're talking about invoking genocide, the
highest level of international legal classification, which carries immense weight
(12:31):
and potential consequences, including intervention. If the actual data acknowledged
by regional actors like ECOOS points towards indiscriminate terrorism and
complex communal violence, then the US should be using diplomatic
tools appropriate for those problems terrorism internal security failures, not
(12:52):
the tools reserved for genocide. Misapplying the term just dilutes
its power and risks alienating the very regional partners we
need for any long term solution.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
I maintain that the international community, guided by the imperative
to protect vulnerable populations facing what looks like mass slaughter,
must consider using all available tools that includes strategic pressure
like the CPC designation, when credible reports of an existential
threat arise, even if regional political objections are raised. Perhaps
(13:22):
by strategic rivals like China talking about internal affairs, the
humanitarian urgency derived from the sheer scale of reported deaths
might outweigh the diplomatic discomfort of challenging a sovereign state's
failure to secure its own people.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
And I would summarize by stressing that any international response,
especially when involving threats of force, must be grounded in precise,
definitional clarity. The UN definition of genocide isn't just a guideline.
It's crucial for actions as extreme as military planning, and
such actions must ideally be supported by regional consensus like
(13:57):
that from Ecowas unilateral threats based on contested religious claims,
they undermine sovereignty, they damage necessary counter terrorism partnerships, and
they dangerously misdiagnose a complex internal security problem as targeted
religious genocide, which ultimately prevents finding effective, sustainable solutions.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
This discussion, I think, clearly illustrates the immense difficulty the
global community faces in classifying internal conflict, especially when powerful
external nations hold fundamentally opposing views on the very nature
of the violence.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Absolutely, it demonstrates the incredibly high stakes involved in determining
when and crucially how external intervention might be justified, if
at all, a critical question that certainly remains open for
further debate.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.