When U.S. President Donald Trump thundered early November that he was ready to go “guns-a-blazing” into Nigeria to stop the killings of Christians, Abuja felt the tremor instantly. Whether Trump’s threats amount to real policy or just political theatrics, they pose a severe diplomatic test for Nigeria, especially the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration, which is already overwhelmed by complex internal security crises.
The violence tearing through parts of Nigeria is indeed brutal. But as U.S. intelligence repeatedly notes, it is not a simple Christian-versus-Muslim war. It is a tangled conflict where extremist groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP weaponise land disputes, resource battles, and community tensions—imperilling both Muslims and Christians. Still, Trump seized on the religious framing, branding Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern,” a label that opens the door to sanctions—and now, startlingly, to talk of military action.
Inside the Pentagon, scenario planning is underway: a “light” strategy of intelligence support, a “medium” option of drone strikes, and the “heavy” option—deploying U.S. naval power. Yet senior defence officials admit any intervention risks becoming another Middle Eastern-style quagmire. Washington has no appetite for that, but Trump’s rhetoric alone can destabilise diplomatic ground.
This is precisely why Nigeria must respond with precision, not panic. And one country has already written the playbook for surviving the Trump-era pressure: Canada.
Canada—America’s closest ally—faced a barrage of economic threats, political tantrums, and rhetorical jabs. Prime Minister Mark Carney responded not with bluster, but with a carefully balanced mix of firmness and restraint. He refused to compromise national interests in negotiations, yet avoided egocentric clashes that could provoke Trump. It was diplomacy with a steel spine hidden beneath a calm exterior.
At one point, Trump half-seriously floated the idea of Canada becoming America’s 51st state, a provocation meant to unsettle Canada. Carney dismissed it with humour and clarity—affirming Canada’s sovereignty without giving Trump the confrontation he sought. That became his trademark: de-escalate the drama, defend the country.
The real confrontation centred on trade. Trump imposed steep tariffs on steel, aluminium, and energy imports from Canada under the flimsiest “national security” pretext. Ottawa responded immediately with billions of duties on U.S. goods—ranging from orange juice to bourbon—sending a clear message that Canada would not be intimidated. However, Carney described the counter-tariffs not as revenge, but as a principled defence of free trade and a way to minimise mutual economic damage.
When a provincial (Ontario) ad criticising Trump’s tariffs enraged the White House and derailed mutual negotiations, the Carney government intervened with calm statements—expressing regret for the ad’s tone while steering talks back on track. Canada refused to let a single misstep spiral into a diplomatic rupture.
Throughout the renegotiation of NAFTA, demands for higher NATO spending, and near-daily provocations, Carney kept the conflict impersonal. He talked of shared borders, shared economies, shared security—not of Trump. The strategy worked. It denied Washington the easy villain narrative and preserved Canada’s leverage.
Nigeria now stands where Canada once stood, in a way. Trump’s threat of military intervention—real or exaggerated—must be met with the same dual strategy: stand firm on sovereignty, stay cordial in tone.
The Tinubu government must contest the “Country of Particular Concern” label with clear evidence showing the complex realities of the conflict, while demonstrating visible, verifiable actions to curb extremist violence. It must reaffirm its commitment to safeguarding both Christians and Muslims—without implying that Nigeria is unwilling (this is the body language to the outside world) or incapable (the reality on the ground) of doing so.
Crucially, Nigeria must embrace security cooperation while making one principle clear: partnership, yes; violation of sovereignty, no.
This is not the moment for diplomatic chest-thumping, nor is it the time for silence. It is the moment for strategic intelligence—a calm, steady hand under fire.
If Nigeria adopts the Canadian formula—measured firmness coupled with unflappable diplomacy—it will defuse the current storm, protect its dignity, and keep the relationship with Washington intact.
Ultimately, strength in foreign policy is not always loud. Sometimes, the most effective shield against inflammatory rhetoric is a quiet, disciplined refusal to be provoked. This is the lesson Canada inscribed in ink. It is the one Nigeria must now read—carefully and urgently.
Olufemi Oluwole, a former editor, wrote in from Canada.
