Recent claims by the US Congressman Scott Perry have reignited a heated debate over the role of the US, specifically under the Obama administration, in exacerbating terrorism in Africa. According to Perry, US aid programs like USAID were complicit in funding Boko Haram, the notorious militant group responsible for terrorizing Nigeria and its neighbors. While such accusations are alarming, they also shine a light on the broader issue of Western involvement in Africa, the questionable nature of foreign aid, and the long-lasting impacts of geopolitical maneuvering. The allegations are as shocking as they are serious. “Who gets some of that money? Does that name ring a bell to anybody in the room? Because your money, your money, $697 million annually, plus the shipments of cash funds in Madrasas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorasan, terrorist training camps. That’s what it’s funding,” Perry said. According to this quote, US financial assistance to countries might have been diverted into the hands of Boko Haram and other militant factions. This is further compounded by the suggestion that the Obama administration, through its support for political and military interventions, contributed to the destabilization of countries like Nigeria, which fosters the rise of extremist groups.
The Role of the Obama Administration and USAID
The US government’s involvement in Africa under President Barack Obama has long been criticized for its inconsistent policies and questionable priorities. For instance, Obama’s handling of the conflict in Libya led to the brutal assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, which left the region in chaos and empowered militant groups like ISIS. But the impact wasn’t just confined to Libya. The power vacuum created by Gaddafi’s fall also destabilized neighboring countries, especially in West Africa. However, critics now argue that the situation in Nigeria deserves particular scrutiny. They contend that the Obama administration, through the CIA, State Department, and USAID, supported groups and individuals aligned with Boko Haram’s ideology. These accusations allege that the US government, under the guise of promoting democracy and stability, may have empowered the very forces that destabilized Nigeria.
One of the most damning critiques comes from claims that the US government withheld weapons and support from the Nigerian military during the height of the Boko Haram insurgency. As the Nigerian government faced increasing attacks by Boko Haram militants, especially after the 2014 kidnapping of the Chibok girls, the US allegedly blocked Nigerian requests for arms, citing human rights concerns. This lack of support pushed Nigeria into desperate measures- eventually, Nigerian leaders were reportedly forced to smuggle weapons from South Africa. While it’s certainly true that some US foreign policy actions have directly hindered Nigeria’s military response to Boko Haram, there is a darker side to the allegations. Congressman Perry’s assertions suggest that, rather than simply ignoring Nigeria’s pleas for assistance, the US government actively facilitated an environment in which Boko Haram could thrive.
Are the Claims True?
Skepticism is warranted. It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence linking USAID or the Obama administration directly to Boko Haram. The group’s origins and growth predate Obama’s presidency, having emerged in the early 2000s. Furthermore, during the Obama years, the US did support efforts to combat Boko Haram, both militarily and through humanitarian aid. Obama’s government was one of the first to designate Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2013 and provided some support to the Nigerian government in their fight against the group. However, that support was often limited and subject to political considerations, particularly the US reluctance to intervene militarily in the region. In this light, the notion that the US created Boko Haram to destabilize Nigeria’s leadership is difficult to prove, though some observers might argue that Washington’s policies inadvertently contributed to the group’s strength by not fully supporting the Nigerian military. Also, much of the frustration with US foreign policy stems from its inconsistency. In one breath, the US condemns Boko Haram, while in the next, it prevents Nigeria from acquiring the means to fight back effectively. The long-term consequences of such a policy are evident in the continuing violence and suffering of innocent civilians.
The Bigger Picture: Geopolitics and Africa’s Struggle
The idea that Western powers, including the US, are deliberately undermining Africa’s progress through funding terrorism or backing destabilizing forces is a common refrain among some African critics. There is a belief, particularly on X, Nairaland, and even among the Nigerian Army hierarchy, that Western countries have a vested interest in preventing Africa from rising as a global power. The theory suggests that by supporting terrorism and fostering political instability, the West can maintain control over Africa’s vast resources while keeping its nations fragmented and weak. Such claims, while extreme, do reflect a broader frustration with the way international aid often functions in Africa. Many believe that so-called aid is less about genuine assistance and more about leveraging control over local economies and politics. In fact, the narrative that Western countries, including the US, only step in to exploit Africa’s resources, rather than help its people, has deep roots in the continent’s colonial history.
Blaming Obama: A Convenient Scapegoat?
The frustration aimed at the Obama administration is understandable, but it is also convenient. The Obama era’s foreign policy failures, especially in Africa, were part of a larger pattern of disengagement and inconsistency that has spanned multiple US presidencies. For example, while the Obama administration did take a strong stance against Boko Haram, the group’s rise began long before Obama entered office. Boko Haram, founded in 2002, had already launched several violent attacks by the time Obama became president in 2009. It is also worth noting that the US did provide Nigeria with some counterterrorism assistance, including surveillance support and intelligence sharing, even though these efforts were limited and often criticized for being inadequate. It is unfair to lay the blame entirely at Obama’s feet, especially when considering the continued US engagement in Africa during the Trump first tenure, which saw no decline in Boko Harem’s activities and no significant change in the US strategy toward Boko Haram. Furthermore, the notion that the US single-handedly created Boko Haram to destabilize Nigeria and remove former President Goodluck Jonathan ignores the complexities of Nigeria’s internal politics and the role of local actors in the insurgency. The rise of Boko Haram can be traced to a number of factors, including Nigeria’s own political failures, the alleged marginalization of the north, and the failure to address the root causes of extremism in the region.
Silence from Nigerian Media: A Broader Conspiracy?
Another striking element in this debate is the silence from many Nigerian media outlets. The idea that major Nigerian news platforms have avoided reporting on the possibility that the USAID funded Boko Haram aligns with conspiracy theories about Western media’s complicity in promoting certain narratives. For example, Instablog has to delete its news on it. But while it’s tempting to chalk this up to foreign influence, the reality may be more mundane; many media organizations avoid stories that might alienate powerful international allies or government sponsors. In any case, this issue is worth exploring more deeply in the context of Nigerian media’s broader role in shaping national discourse.
Final Say
The question of whether the US intentionally funded Boko Haram or simply failed to prevent the group’s rise remains an open one. However, what is clear is that the US and other Western powers have often played a destabilizing role in Africa, both through direct intervention and indirect support for corrupt or ineffective governments. The situation in Nigeria, in particular, highlights the failures of international aid and foreign policy. As the region continues to grapple with the consequences of foreign influence and local mismanagement, the voices calling for greater accountability and reform will only grow louder. In the end, it is crucial for Africans to engage critically with these allegations, not just by blaming external forces but also by holding their own leaders accountable. The true battle for Africa’s future lies not only in resisting external manipulation but in demanding transparency and good governance from those in power.
This is the opinion of the writer and not the view of this platform.
One thought on “USAID and the Alleged Funding of Boko Haram: A Closer Look at the Claims By Chigozie Nnuriam”