Last month, I wrote on the plight of Nigerian Christians and their brutal victimization by Muslim radicals that has resulted in tens of thousands of innocent Christians slaughtered. What I failed to include was then President Trump's handling of the Nigerian Christian crisis during his administration. This omission was a major oversight on my part because of the stark contrast between the two leaders and their leadership styles and what this contrast says about their respective moral identities as government leaders.
In the world of politics, controversies are frequent and often spark heated debates among the masses. Kamala Harris, the first female, first Black, and first South Asian Vice President of the United States, has evaded scrutiny and accountability regarding her silence and lack of action on the persecution of Nigerian Christians. This post is a continuation of last month's blog and delves further into Kamala's failure, where the Trump precedent was entirely ignored.
The Trump administration, known for its conservative stance on international relations, set a standard that tended to focus on ownership and responsibility for the homeland. The former President was known for his strong language and decisive actions in response to global issues. Trump famously did this with NATO funding and support from the U.S. In contrast, I have argued that Kamala Harris's approach to the Nigerian persecution problem lacks the same level of assertiveness, urgency, moral conviction, and commitment to principled governance.
Critics of Kamala Harris can easily point to the Trump precedent as the benchmark for decisive leadership in the face of international crises. The dismissal of this standard in her handling of the Nigerian persecution crisis raises serious questions about her commitment to human rights and her ability to address pressing global challenges effectively. Despite these criticisms, supporters of Vice President Harris highlight her "diplomatic" approach and the emphasis she places on justice and eliminating human suffering.
Nevertheless, when then President Trump met with then President of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari in 2018, he confronted the Nigerian Christian persecution problem directly.
We are deeply concerned by religious violence in Nigeria including the burning of churches and the killing and persecution of Christians.
It's a horrible story and we encourage Nigeria and the Federal State of local leaders to do everything in their power to immediately secure the affected communities and to protect the innocent civilians of all faiths - including Muslims and including Christians.
His commitment was reiterated in 2020 in a brief but powerful Press Secretary statement:
This week, the United States designated Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern for severe violations of religious freedom. As President Donald J. Trump said to President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria when they met in 2018, the United States is deeply concerned by religion-based violence in Nigeria, particularly the killing and persecution of Christians. Tragically, since that meeting, millions of Nigerians have continued to live in fear for their lives, and several thousand have been brutally murdered because of their faith. Since taking office, President Trump has made it clear that his Administration will fight to defend and to advance the inalienable right to worship freely and to live in accordance with one’s faith, whether here in the United States or beyond America’s borders. Governments whose leaders have allowed perpetrators of vicious religious persecution to act with impunity pose a national security threat to the United States and the world. This week’s designation rightfully calls out the Nigerian government’s inexcusable lack of action to end faith-based violence.
Where Trump is unambiguous and explicit in his commitment to defending religious liberty against radical Islamists, Vice President Harris was the complete opposite...total silence and neglect. The difference between the two on this issue is beyond night and day: Trump versus Harris is more like the difference between Godzilla versus Curious George, and it's not even close.
It is clear that Kamala Harris's approach to the Nigerian persecution problem potentially could become a topic of significant contention and scrutiny. The Kamala comparison to the Trump precedent serves as a meaningful reminder that addressing human rights violations on the global stage requires a leadership style that's bold, unwavering, uncompromising, and grounded on moral principles that are compatible with American ideals and standards enshrined in our founding documents.
In conclusion, Part 2 of the Kamala's Nigerian Persecution Problem series exposes the important distinction between Trump and Harris and how Harris's failure to embrace and build upon what Trump started in 2018 contradicts everything she promoted about herself in her DNC acceptance speech (e.g. democracy, protecting victims of injustice, and "the right to safety, dignity, and justice"). Moreover, her silence and inability to address Christian genocide in Nigeria during meetings with the President and Vice President of Nigeria is a poor reflection on who she is as a leader and a defender of freedom of religion and freedom from religious persecution. This is an expectation of governments worldwide, but Kamala's hands-off approach with Nigerian leaders is an affront to democratic ideals and the authority of Constitutional democracy and responsible governance. Kamala's dismissal of the Trump precedent is leadership failure at its worst because the innocent victims of sectarian violence in Nigeria are voiceless and without an advocate from America, the global leader for defending democracy and religious freedom worldwide. Kamala's refusal to advocate for persecuted Nigerian Christians is indefensible and unbecoming of a U.S. Vice President/Presidential candidate who is entrusted with rallying global support against gross acts of inhumanity and injustice.
Comments