Follow us on social

2021-10-20t000000z_1132648598_mt1nurpho000g7v7ei_rtrmadp_3_nigeria-protest-scaled

New report: Decades of US military aid has been a disaster for Nigerians

Washington's $2 billion counterterrorism program was supposed to enhance security, but it's had the opposite effect.

Analysis | Reporting | Africa

The United States has heavily invested in a security partnership with Nigeria over the last 20 years, supplying that country with warplanes, weapons, and training to support its fight against terrorist groups and foster military professionalism among its troops. But a new report finds that despite the assistance, the Nigerian armed forces have not only failed to defeat militants but routinely commit grave human rights abuses in the name of counterterrorism without repercussions from the United States.

From Burkina Faso to Cameroon to Ethiopia, the United States has poured money into allied African militaries that have frequently proven more capable of abusing civilians than protecting them.  In each case, accountability mechanisms have been lax and slow to respond to reports of abuses. The report from Brown University’s Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Studies, the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy, and InterAction demonstrates that Nigeria fits the same pattern.

“We know from this and other cases around the world that training in civilian protection and human rights issues isn't enough to change behavior and prevent abuses if security forces aren't being held accountable for their actions,” Lauren Woods, the director of the Security Assistance Monitor, told Responsible Statecraft. “Unfortunately, what we see in Nigeria is emblematic of what we see with security assistance and arms sales all over the world.”

Since 2000, the U.S. has provided, facilitated, or approved more than $2 billion in security assistance and military weapons and equipment sales to Nigeria and has conducted more than 41,000 training courses for Nigerian military personnel to support counterterrorism efforts aimed at defeating Boko Haram and the Islamic State’s West Africa Province as well as promoting cooperation on maritime and border security and strengthening military professionalism, according to the report.  

Despite two decades spent mentoring the Nigerian armed forces, that military has been regularly implicated in gross human rights violations and crimes under international law, including extrajudicial executions and incommunicado detentions.  Between 2011 and 2021, for example, at least 10,000 civilians died in Nigerian military custody after being detained in connection with the Boko Haram insurgency in northeast Nigeria, according to Amnesty International.  Last August, Amnesty also reported that at least 115 people in the country’s southeast had been killed by security forces in the previous four months.

The U.S. State Department’s most recent human rights assessment also found credible reports of unlawful and arbitrary killings, forced disappearances, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, among many other crimes, by the Nigerian government.

The failure, despite efforts by the U.S. government and Nigerian military leadership, to curtail these rampant human rights violations indicates, says the new report, “that trainings provided by the U.S. and others have been insufficient” and that the United States has demonstrated “apparent limited capacity to shape the conduct of Nigerian security forces, notably on best practices to minimize civilian harm and follow up to allegations of abuse.”

In January 2017, a Nigerian air strike aimed at Boko Haram terrorists left more than 200 civilians dead or wounded. Later that year, the United States agreed to sell Nigeria 12 Super Tucano warplanes, including thousands of bombs and rockets, for $593 million, then the largest U.S. foreign military sale in sub-Saharan Africa. Last month, the U.S. approved a possible $997 million deal for 12 attack helicopters and related training and equipment to Nigeria. This followed revelations that, in April 2021, a Nigerian military helicopter launched  indiscriminate attacks on homes, farms and a school in an effort to strike at “bandits.”

The new report reveals that the January 2017 and April 2021 air strikes were not anomalies. Civilian casualties from such attacks have markedly increased in recent years, NGOs told the authors. “There is reportedly a widespread conception across military forces that any civilians who have not come out of the bush are affiliated with [nonstate armed groups],” according to the report. “The military seldom distinguishes between civilians and combatants and fails to take adequate precautions to mitigate civilian harm in anti-insurgent operations.” 

While the United States delayed its approval of the almost $1 billion attack helicopter deal due to human rights concerns including civilian deaths during Nigerian counterterrorism operations, experts say that the ultimate endorsement of the sale sends the wrong message.  “It's hard to have an incentive to change behavior without consequences,” said Woods, one of the authors of the new report. “You can offer all the civilian protection and human rights training in the world, but without meaningful consequences for abuses, something the government cares about, it's hard to get a different result other than continued abuses.” 

For its part, the United States — from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya to SomaliaSyria and Yemen — has its own longstanding issues with civilian harm and failures of accountability. The Pentagon recently declared, for example, that a 2019 airstrike in Syria that the New York Times determined killed up to 64 noncombatants, including women and children, and was obscured through a multilayered coverup did not violate the laws of war or warrant disciplinary action.  

The $1 billion purchase of 12 attack helicopters would provide Nigeria with a significant upgrade in aerial firepower but experts say that it’s unlikely to significantly alter the balance of power in the country’s long fight with militants and more likely to lead to additional civilian harm.

“This is an enormous arms deal. And it comes after years of weapons flowing into Nigeria from the United States, apparently without any mechanism to slow or stop the flow if the Nigerian government cannot hold its armed forces accountable for abuses,” said Woods. “It's as though we still believe that new and better weapons will finally address this growing insecurity.”


Protesters chant slogan songs during a protest to commemorate one year anniversary of #EndSars, a protest against a military attack on protesters at Lekki tollgate in Lagos, Nigeria, on October 20, 2021. Men of the Nigeria Police Force disperse youths who held a memorial protest in Lagos to commemorate a military attack during the protest against police brutality on 20 October 2020.NO USE FRANCE
Analysis | Reporting | Africa
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.