Daybreak, Politics, Entertainment, Sport

Tag: U.S

U.S Bill: Driving a wedge at Nigeria- China Partnership
By Charles Onunaiju, Abuja
Just recently, American’s political establishment took credulity too far, perhaps believing that it takes only to dare and fabricate and everything falls into place.
Nigeria is Africa’s major country, both the continent’s largest economy and biggest population has humongous deposit of critical minerals beneath its expansive swath of land.
Nigeria relations and cooperation with China generally considered pragmatic with outcomes of tangible results have also been the target of innuendoes and scurrilous misrepresentations by the United States of America.
While it has largely conducted its persistent slander of Nigeria-China cooperation, without necessarily naming names, its latest bold effrontery at targeting the Nigeria-Sino relation was a undisguised spittle concocted from Washington’s paranoid ideological bowels, only that this time its stinking dirt was covered with a so-called legislative bill, with a patronising title,” Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026″ with the explicit aim “to require a comprehensive report on United State efforts to address religious persecutions and mass atrocities in Nigeria”.
The nexus to Nigeria’s mass atrocities and Washington underhand complicity was in public display a year ago, when a U.S Republican Congressman, Mr. Perry Scott disclosed that the United States Aid Agency (USAID) funded foreign terrorist organization, including the dreaded terror group in Nigeria, Boko Haram and its off-shots, which has wreaked havoc in Nigeria besides its original base in the North East of the country.
The Massacre of nearly 200 people in the sleepy community of Worro in Kwara state, North Central Nigeria was perpetrated by Boko Haram offshoot operating in Kainji forest in the region.
Congressman Scott Perry in a session titled “The war on Waste: Stamping out the scourge of improper payments and fraud” raised questions about where the tax payer’s money go, “who get some of the money?Does the name ring bell to anybody in the room? Because your money, your money, $697 million annually plus the shipments of cash, funds in Madrases ISIS, AL-Queda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorassan terrorist training camps.
That is what it is funding.” Connecting the revelations with the resilience and the staying power of the Boko Haram terror group despite the military pressure of Nigeria’s authorities, not many people have any illusions about who keep the terror campaign in Nigeria on the move and flourishing too.Despite that in 2021, Nigeria received all the twelve Tucano fighter jets from the U.S at a whooping cost of 500 million U.S dollars, described by the U.S Department of Defence, renamed Department of War as the largest single arms purchase in sub-Africa.
Despite the hype, the fighter jets did not manage to serious dent the Boko Haram campaign of terror, rather its theatre was rather widened.The latest legislative bill took umbrage at China, directing “the secretary of State to work with the government of Nigeria to counteract hostile foreign exploitation of Chinese illegal mining operations and destabilizing practices involving protection payments to militias”.
The brazen interference in the normal bilateral cooperation of two friendly countries, represent a new low of the unhinged Washington elites for whom trouble shopping is a next nature.
Five Republican lawmakers, Messers Chris Smith, Niley Moore, Brian Mast, Mario Driaz-Balart and Bill Huizenga have been in the fore-front of the fabrication about a genocide of any particular group in Nigeria despite the well-known fact that all religious groups in Nigeria have fallen victims to the heinous campaign of terror, and whose origins have much to do with Washington.
Before the U.S led NATO destabilization campaign in Libya, Boko Haram was an extremist sect, whose campaign was restricted to a small patch of a state in North East Nigeria. The destabilization of Libya by the U.S led NATO opened the gate to hell releasing weapons, munitions and trainees to incipient terror group across the Sahel and Nigeria. Boko Haram, whose terror tactics was mainly confined to improvised makeshift bombs took hold of the portions of Libyan armory flung open by the U.S led NATO and deliberately allowed to flow into the hands of irregular non state actors.
That Boko Haram and its affiliates metamorphosised from a local lightly armed band to a sophisticated terror group was largely thanks to Washington and NATO. While Washington has extensibly nurtured and fed terror campaigns in Nigeria and the Sahel, her audacity to point fingers in other directions is a well established pattern of U.S historical revisionism.China through her Embassy in Nigeria has pushed back at the U.S allegations, describing it as “completely baseless”, pointing that “the over-whelming majority of Chinese mining companies in Nigeria have set an exemplary record of compliance with Nigeria laws and regulations”. and adding that “Chinese mining enterprises in Nigeria are victims of terrorist activities”.Since 2025, Nigeria has been commissioning multiple Chinese backed Lithium plants marking a departure from raw material exports to domestic processing.
Major projects include 600 million USD plant near Kaduna-Niger border, a 200 million USD refinery near Abuja and two additional facilities in Nasarawa. Over 80% of the funding for this four major facilities are provided by Chinese investors including Jiuling Lithium Mining Company and Canmax Technologies.
In the race to the global electric vehicle battery supply chain, Nigeria’s increased capacity in the sector through massive Chinese investment, would significantly boost her position.The United States understand the prospect of Nigeria emerging capacity in the global energy transition and would stop at nothing to derail it.
The first step is to slander and scare away the Chinese investors, bringing the emerging industry to share the similar fate of the Ajaokuta steel Mill abandoned with implications that robbed Nigeria a place in the global steel industry value chain.
Turning Nigeria into a theatre for the ideological containment of China is a Washington long term project and the pretenses to address religious persecution and mass atrocities in Nigeria’ is the latest chapter in undermining Nigerian prospects and tarnishing one her important bilateral relations.
Nigeria authorities must reflect on a spectacular moment in U.S power diplomacy as noted by one of her leading lights on U.S international relations. Henry Kissinger has warned that “While to be America’s enemy is dangerous, to be America’s friend is fatal”.
That the Atlantic alliance is currently at its fractured worst point that any pontifications of altruism and concerns for others by Washington must be taken with considerable and measured sceptism.While a range of intervening variables would be necessary in the Nigeria’s fight against terrorism, banditry and other criminalities; inclusive and sustainable development is not only the solution in the long term but a guarantee against future resurgence.
In this regard, Nigeria-China partnership have delivered tangible contributions and it is no wonder that “America first” ideologues would go for the jugular of that meaningful partnership.
Mr., Onunaiju is Abuja based commentator on Public Affairs
February 14, 2026
U.S. Foreign Policy Shifts and Their Implications for Global Geopolitics
By Michael Onjewu
In an era where multilateralism is increasingly vital for addressing transnational challenges like climate change, food insecurity, and human rights violations, the United States’ recent foreign policy decisions have raised alarms across the international community.
As of early 2026, under the current administration, the U.S. has pursued a series of actions that prioritize national interests over global cooperation, including withdrawals from key international frameworks, stringent visa restrictions on several nations, and threats of unilateral military interventions.
These moves, while framed as protective of American sovereignty and security, carry significant risks not only for the directly affected regions like Africa but also for the broader geopolitics and the rules-based international order.
One of the most contentious aspects of recent U.S. foreign policy is the withdrawal from international organizations, conventions, and treaties deemed inconsistent with American interests. This approach echoes past patterns, such as the U.S. exit from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017 (later rejoined) and the Iran nuclear deal, but has intensified in 2025-2026 with targeted pullouts from frameworks supporting global development and humanitarian efforts.
For instance, the U.S. has scaled back or withdrawn support from entities like the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) initiatives and certain World Health Organization (WHO) protocols, citing inefficiencies or biases against U.S. agricultural and pharmaceutical industries.
These decisions have direct repercussions for Africa, a continent already grappling with acute vulnerabilities. Africa’s food security is precarious, with over 20% of its population facing hunger according to recent UN reports. U.S. withdrawals from treaties like the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture could limit access to shared seed banks and technologies, exacerbating famine risks in drought-prone regions such as the Sahel. Similarly, on climate change adaptation, the U.S. retreat from funding mechanisms under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) hinders Africa’s ability to build resilient infrastructure against rising sea levels and extreme weather, which disproportionately affect sub-Saharan nations.
Moreover, the safeguarding of marginalized groups’ rights is at stake. Pullouts from human rights conventions, such as selective non-compliance with aspects of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or refugee protocols, signal a diminished U.S. commitment to global norms. In Africa, where conflicts and displacement affect millions, particularly women, children, and ethnic minorities, this creates voids that authoritarian regimes or non-state actors might exploit, leading to increased instability.
From a geopolitical lens, these withdrawals project poor optics by portraying the U.S. as an unreliable partner. Historically, America has positioned itself as a champion of the liberal international order, promoting democracy and collective problem-solving. However, such unilateralism fuels accusations of “America First” isolationism, alienating allies in Europe and Asia who rely on these frameworks. This erosion of soft power weakens the international order, as it encourages other nations to similarly cherry-pick commitments, leading to a “might makes right” paradigm where global challenges like climate change go unaddressed.
Compounding these issues are the U.S. imposed restrictions on visa applications for citizens of Nigeria and 18 other countries, primarily in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Announced in late 2025, these measures expand on previous travel bans, citing security concerns, economic reciprocity, and immigration control. For Nigerians, this has resulted in prolonged processing times, higher denial rates, and requirements for additional documentation, creating substantial travel difficulties for students, business professionals, and families.
While the U.S. justifies these as necessary for national security, the policy has sparked widespread criticism for potential discriminatory undertones. Many of the targeted countries have Muslim-majority populations or histories of conflict, raising questions about whether the restrictions disproportionately affect certain ethnic or religious groups. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have highlighted how such policies echo the 2017 “Muslim Ban,” which was ruled unconstitutional in parts, and could violate international norms under the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The human impact is profound. Nigerian entrepreneurs face barriers to U.S. markets, students miss educational opportunities at American universities, and diaspora communities endure family separations. Economically, this stifles bilateral trade; Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, relies on remittances and tech collaborations with the U.S., which could decline amid these hurdles.
Geopolitically, this policy exemplifies bad optics by reinforcing narratives of U.S. hypocrisy. America promotes itself as a beacon of opportunity and inclusivity, yet these restrictions suggest a fortress mentality that alienates emerging powers. In Africa, it bolsters anti-Western sentiment, making it easier for rivals to portray the U.S. as xenophobic. This could erode alliances, such as those in counterterrorism efforts against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and contribute to a fragmented international order where visa diplomacy becomes a tool for coercion rather than cooperation. As global mobility becomes key to economic integration, such isolationist stances risk positioning the U.S. as a pariah, diminishing its influence in forums like the African Union or G20.
Perhaps the most alarming development is the U.S. signaling of potential additional strikes in Nigeria if violence against Christian communities persists. This stems from escalating attacks by Islamist militants and herdsmen in Nigeria’s Middle Belt and North, which have claimed thousands of lives in recent years. In 2025, the U.S. conducted limited drone strikes under the guise of counterterrorism, but recent statements from U.S. officials indicate readiness for escalation if the Nigerian government fails to curb the violence.
Analysts stress that any further U.S. military engagement must secure explicit consent from Abuja to respect national sovereignty. Without it, such actions could be seen as violations of international law, reminiscent of past interventions like those in Iraq or Libya, which led to prolonged instability. Nigeria, as West Africa’s powerhouse and a key oil producer, views its security as a sovereign matter; unilateral U.S. strikes might inflame anti-American protests, empower extremists, or even strain relations with ECOWAS.
The optics here are particularly damaging. By threatening intervention framed around protecting Christians, the U.S. risks appearing to engage in selective humanitarianism—intervening based on religious affiliations rather than universal principles. This could alienate Muslim-majority nations and fuel perceptions of a “clash of civilizations,” undermining U.S. efforts in global counterterrorism coalitions. Geopolitically, it signals a return to unilateral militarism, eroding the post-World War II order built on UN Security Council consensus and respect for borders. In Africa, it might encourage other powers, like France or Turkey, to pursue their own interventions, leading to proxy conflicts and a breakdown in regional stability. Ultimately, without Nigerian buy-in, such moves could backfire, portraying the U.S. as an imperial actor rather than a partner, thus weakening its moral authority on the world stage.
Collectively, these U.S. policies paint a picture of retrenchment that harms American interests in the long term. They project bad optics by highlighting inconsistencies: a nation that lectures on human rights while restricting access, champions multilateralism while withdrawing from it, and advocates for sovereignty while threatening interventions. This hypocrisy erodes trust, making it harder for the U.S. to rally coalitions against shared threats like pandemics or great-power rivalries.
In geopolitics, the fallout is a more multipolar world where middle powers like Nigeria pivot toward alternatives. This fragments the international order, reducing collective action on pressing issues and increasing the risk of conflicts. For Africa, the continent risks becoming a battleground for influence, with its development goals sidelined.
To mitigate this, the U.S. must recommit to diplomacy, seeking inclusive reforms in international bodies rather than exits, and ensuring policies align with professed values. Failure to do so not only isolates America but accelerates the decline of the rules-based system it helped build. As global interdependence grows, such isolationism is not just bad optics, it’s a strategic misstep with lasting consequences.
Michael Onjewu is a journalist based in Abuja, Nigeria
January 13, 2026
Why U.S wants to ban TikTok, other Chinese-linked Apps
The TikTok app will be banned from US app stores from Sunday unless president Donald Trump approves a last-minute deal between US tech firm Oracle and TikTok owner ByteDance. US authorities say the Chinese video sharing app threaten national security and could pass on user data to China.
The United States of America is on the verge of banning the popular social media app, TikTok, and other apps that are based in or have links with China.
The move is predicated on security concerns that the Chinese government officials could gain access to American users’ data under Chinese law that could compel the company to hand over information.
A new bill by U.S. lawmakers indicates that the impending ban is not only targeting Chinese apps but also “any social media company in, or under the influence of, China, Russia, and several other foreign countries of concern.”
Specifically, the bill is targeting TikTok which is owned by ByteDance.
Nairametrics understands that the company will remain the main target until the day it can be certified that it no longer poses as a security threat to the United States of America.
Earlier this year, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had written to Apple and Google requesting them to remove TikTok from their app stores. FCC Commissioner, Brendan Carr, accused TikTok of harvesting swaths of sensitive data that are being accessed in Beijing.
The Commissioner alleged that TikTok is not just an app for sharing funny memes or videos but a “sophisticated surveillance tool that harvests extensive amounts of personal and sensitive data.”
ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, however, assured the U.S. regulator that it was not under the influence of the Chinese government, adding that Americans’ data are saved with the company. These assurances have, however, failed to douse the tension.
December 18, 2022
U.S. double standards in Ukraine crisis testify to sole purpose of global domination
A month into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, picturing an endgame is challenging, with the White House poised to heap more pressure on the Kremlin while ignoring Moscow’s demands for security.
During the crisis, the United States, guided by its self-interests, has added fuel to the fire by delivering lethal weapons to Ukraine and imposing unprecedented sanctions on Russia.
All U.S. moves run counter to global efforts to de-escalate the conflict and won’t inspire an urgently needed ceasefire. Instead, Washington’s actions aim to shore up its global domination, and other countries are paying the price.
“STRATEGIC MISTAKE”
Before the fighting broke out, the United States had intentionally hyped up tensions between Russia and Ukraine instead of pooling efforts to smooth things over. With the situation worsening, the country is wielding its political heft and flexing its economic muscles to corner Russia, many experts have said.
For the United States, “the relative ease of imposing economic sanctions has made them the foreign-policy option of first resort, despite a growing body of evidence that they often fail to achieve their goals,” Fortune magazine wrote on Feb. 24, when Russia launched the special military operation.
“In some cases, experience has shown that sanctions only entrench undesirable behavior from the parties they target,” it added.
“The tool of sanctions has become a tired tool,” Stephen Biegun, former U.S. deputy secretary of state under ex-president Donald Trump, was quoted in the report as saying.
The use of sanctions, Biegun added, “has not seemed to significantly alter the behavior of any foreign party whose actions are of concern to the United States.”
Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview with Xinhua on Wednesday that the continuous expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has reached an “extreme” point and that the Russian reaction of launching its military operation “was predictable.”
“In that sense, we made a strategic mistake,” he said.
To further isolate Moscow, the United States has proposed excluding Russia from the Group of 20, attempting to blur the line between global economic cooperation and political security.
The U.S.-led response to Russia laid bare double standards and was “hysterical,” which even includes sanctions on cats and dogs, Jin Canrong, professor at the School of International Studies of Renmin University of China, told Xinhua on Thursday.
U.S. DOUBLE STANDARDS
The double standards employed by Washington on Ukraine have once again revealed the essence of its foreign policy — which put America’s interests first — despite politically-glorified slogans of defending peace, democracy, human rights and freedom.
While chanting freedom of speech, the United States forced Russia’s English news channel RT America to cease production earlier this month as part of its whole-of-the-system information campaign to mute Russia. Furthermore, several U.S. social media platforms have rushed to close accounts and delete content seen as pro-Moscow.
“They’re afraid of even a single voice coming out as challenging the power elite, questioning them, daring to hold a dissenting view,” former Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard said recently. “And they’re afraid because their arguments are so weak that they know they will not withstand the light of the truth.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., concluded as early as 2018 that the United States has had “too many foreign policy double standards.” However, its leaders like to portray the nation “as an exemplar of ethical conduct in the international system.”
“Such blatant hypocrisy and double standards continue today,” Carpenter said. “U.S. leaders need to be candid with the American people and acknowledge that their decisions are based on cold calculations of national interest, not ethical considerations.”
Double standards were boldly on display when the U.S. urged European countries to absorb people fleeing Ukraine while indifferent to refugees from certain war-torn places in the Middle East and parts of Asia, whose suffering has stemmed mainly from years-long, hegemony-sustaining military operations led by the United States.
Residents of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, took to the streets in mid-February to condemn the White House for its decision to free up 3.5 billion U.S. dollars in Afghan assets held in the United States for families of 9/11 victims and urged America to provide financial compensation for the tens of thousands of Afghans killed during 20 years of war in the landlocked nation.
“Money stolen from Afghans, an economy destroyed,” tweeted Sana Saeed, a host and senior producer of AJ+, a social media publisher owned by Al Jazeera Media Network. “The depravity of this current crisis could have been avoided but instead the U.S. chose to starve an entire people.”
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has waged numerous wars under the guise of “human rights over sovereignty,” putting hegemonism above the international order and domestic law above international law, Jin said.
DANGERS OF U.S. SELF-ABSORPTION
With a fixation on political coercing and economic bullying, Washington has tried to shore up its leadership while letting European countries foot the bill for soaring energy prices, rising military expenses and the heavy burden of absorbing a massive influx of refugees.
The United States is the “remote controller” of the current Russia-Ukraine crisis while Ukraine has become the “cannon fodder,” Chen Fengying, a researcher with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, said in a recent interview with Xinhua.
Chen said “the sanctions imposed by the United States on Russia are limitless and unprecedented,” adding that the current international order has been “disrupted,” which might make more countries take an interests-first stance.
William Jones, Washington bureau chief of the U.S. publication Executive Intelligence Review, told Xinhua in a recent interview that Russia’s main concern about NATO eastward expansion has never been heeded by the United States, “which is only interested in maintaining its hegemonic status in Europe, and which has been steadily retreating from that collaborative policy which the West committed itself to after the Cold War.”
A major exporter of some of the world’s most essential commodities as Russia is, massive U.S. economic sanctions would undoubtedly shock the trade in commodities, disrupt global supply chains and thus weigh heavily on the fragile post-pandemic recovery of the global economy.
Ira Kalish, the chief global economist at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, said the sanctions “create a risk that trade in commodities could become disrupted, especially exports of oil and gas commodities to Europe.”
“This risk is manifested in a sizable increase in the prices of key commodities, potentially leading to even higher global inflation and weaker global growth,” said Kalish.
March 25, 2022
U.S. disinformation against China won’t bring peace
The New York Times recently cited “anonymous U.S. officials” claiming that China was aware of Russia’s intentions and plans in Ukraine ahead of time. The Washington Post also claimed, citing U.S. officials, that Russia had asked China for military equipment since the start of its military operation in Ukraine.
The so-called “anonymous officials” cited by The New York Times were later revealed to be members of the National Security Council of the White House.
In attempts to shift blame to China, these reports sought to portray China as acquiescing to or having tacitly supported the war. They are in essence part of the U.S. government’s deliberate disinformation campaign against China.
To debunk the absurd allegations and disinformation against China, one only needs to examine China’s relations with both Ukraine and Russia.
There were more than 6,000 Chinese nationals in Ukraine before the conflict, many of whom were young students. The Chinese embassy in Ukraine did not announce an evacuation of Chinese nationals until Feb. 25. If China had been aware of Russia’s plan in advance, it would have started the evacuation earlier rather than waiting until the conflict broke out and putting its nationals in great danger. In comparison, it was the United States that constantly played up the war threat and declared a hasty withdrawal of its personnel from Kiev as early as Feb. 14.
Economically, China has remained Ukraine’s largest single trading partner since 2019, and Ukraine has been one of China’s most important sources of grain imports. About 30 percent of China’s corn imports in 2021 came from Ukraine. Meanwhile, as a hub on the China-Europe Railway Express service, Ukraine also serves as a bridge connecting China and its European trade partners. As a participant of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Ukraine signed agreements on cooperation with China in multiple fields including finance, energy, technology, and infrastructure. With important economic interests in Ukraine, China has no wish whatsoever to see any conflict in Ukraine.
Most Western media reports deduced that China and Russia have forged a close alliance marked by “no limits” to their strategic partnership as declared in their Joint Statement. However, they simply ignored the real consideration behind that wording.
According to the Joint Statement, this partnership mainly concentrates on issues of development and global concerns, without any mention of military obligations in any form. In reality, “no limits” does not mean military alliance, but is rather about a high-level mutual trust and mutually beneficial cooperation.
On the contrary, from NATO to Quad, from AUKUS to bilateral alliances, the United States itself is a champion of military alliances or blocs. What an irony it is for the United States to accuse China and Russia of forming a military alliance, given its track record of military expansion and stoking conflicts around the world!
The hidden agenda behind the U.S. false propaganda is to incite anti-China sentiments, distort China’s position and efforts to promote peace talks, and divert world attention from the dirty U.S. role in the crisis by pushing for NATO’s reckless and relentless expansion, which eventually led to the current conflict. Till now, the United States has done everything to fan the flames, from providing military aid to wielding the baton of sanctions, but little to promote peace.
For those who regard the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to sling mud at China, why not save the strength to de-escalate the situation and promote peace?
March 21, 2022
Nigeria Receives 3.2 Million Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines From U.S
Nigeria has received 3.2 million Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines donated by the United States as authorities step up efforts to curb the spread of the disease in the country.
The Executive Director of the National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA), Dr Faisal Shuaib, and his technical staff among others took delivery of the vaccines presented by the U.S. Ambassador, Beth Leonard, on Tuesday at the National Strategic Warehouse in Abuja.
“These vaccines have over six months of validity before expiration and are being stored at the National Strategic Warehouse for distribution to thousands of COVID-19 vaccination sites nationwide,” a statement from the U.S. Mission Nigeria read.
“During the visit, Ambassador Leonard inspected the vaccine doses and discussed how the agency is maintaining proper ultra-cold storage, as safe and effective vaccines are our best tool to ending the pandemic.
“The latest shipment reflects the United States’ commitment to purchase and donate 1.2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses worldwide. To date, the United States has delivered more than 370 million vaccine doses to over 110 countries. This includes the over 24.7 million U.S-donated doses of COVID-19 vaccines to the Nigerian people.”
According to the statement, all Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine doses donated by the U.S. to Nigeria have had an expiration deadline of at least six months or more upon receipt to ensure adequate time for use.
It explained that the vaccine donations were a part of the U.S. government’s continued partnership with the Nigerian Government in combating COVID-19.
“To date, the U.S. government has provided over $130 million of technical and financial support to Nigeria’s COVID-19 response specifically for vaccination roll out and administration, deployment of personnel to support the response, last-mile delivery and supply chain logistics, epidemiological and vaccine-related COVID-19 surveys and surveillance systems, testing capacity and molecular lab networks, personal protective equipment, and provision of rapid response teams.
“The U.S. government has also contributed to the training of over 200,000 military and civilian personnel on COVID-19 control measures and maintaining preventive health and social services. The U.S. government urges all Nigerians to go out and get vaccinated to make themselves safe and make use of the donated COVID-19 vaccines,” the statement added.
It stated that these actions would strengthen not only the health and well-being of Nigeria but the overall worldwide response to the pandemic.
The U.S. government stressed that every individual has a vital role to play in supporting the global effort needed to stem the spread of COVID-19.
It promised to continue its partnership with the Federal Ministry of Health and the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) to defeat COVID-19 and deliver life-saving vaccine doses across the country via COVAX.
January 18, 2022
U.S. Donates 2.5 Million Doses Of Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines To Nigeria
The United States has announced the donation of 2.5 million Pfizer vaccine doses to Nigeria.
This was disclosed in a statement by the U.S Embassy on Thursday.
According to the statement, the vaccine doses arrived in Abuja this week and were received by the National Primary Health Care Development Agency and taken to cold storage in preparation for distribution.
The vaccines are planned to be distributed to over 3,000 health facilities across all 36 states and FCT-Abuja. The statement added that the vaccines in the next few weeks will be available across major locations for vaccination in the country.
“Over the next several weeks, the vaccines will be available at major markets, shopping malls, event centers, motor parks, airports, places of employment, and religious institutions as part of Nigeria’s mass vaccination campaign.”
The statement added that, “the United States has donated more than 13.5 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine in partnership with COVAX, or bilaterally to Nigeria.
“Additionally, the United States has provided more than $119 million in COVID-19 related health assistance.”
The COVID-19 related health assistance according to the U.S Embassy includes a 40-bed mobile field hospital, ventilators, and related training for 88 hospitals, personal protective equipment, technical assistance for vaccine readiness, risk communication, and demand generation for vaccines.
Others include “conducting an epidemiological COVID-19 detection and vaccine hesitancy survey, setting up electronic record systems, rapid response teams, training for over 200,000 military and civilian personnel on COVID-19 control measures, and technology for virtual training.”
In addition, the United States leveraged the PEPFAR-supported National Integrated Specimen Referral Network (NiSRN) and laboratory investments to support the expansion of the NCDC (153) molecular laboratory network nationwide.
The statement explained that the United States is committed to helping end the pandemic in Nigeria and everywhere, also committed to donating more than one billion vaccine doses around the world, by early 2022.
This includes African countries primarily through the COVAX initiative. Improving equitable distribution remains a priority for the United States to prevent the emergence of new variants that threaten populations everywhere.
December 9, 2021
U.S. social divide exacerbates spread of COVID-19
By Yu An
The poor performance of the U.S. in COVID-19 response is no wonder one of the biggest “black swans” of 2020. The “systematic fracture” is believed by the U.S. society to be a major reason why the world’s No. 1 economic and tech power failed in this regard.
The BBC warned in a March 24 article that the coronavirus pandemic could mark another ‘Suez moment’ for the U.S. The New York Times listed 1,000 names of the U.S. citizens who died of COVID-19 on its front page on May 24 as the country’s COVID-19 death toll neared 100,000. In late September, the TIME magazine printed its cover with dates and death counts listed back to back to mark an approaching milestone in the coronavirus pandemic — 200,000 related deaths, calling it an “American failure.” The New England Journal of Medicine, in an editorial published on Oct. 8, pointed out that the U.S. has “taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.” In the Nov. 30 issue of the TIME, the magazine once again warned that the U.S. is now locked in a deadly cycle.
Since Nov. 3, the U.S. has been recording over 100,000 new confirmed coronavirus cases a day. The growth exacerbated in December, and so did the daily deaths. So far, there have been over 18.93 million confirmed COVID-19 cases and 330,000 deaths in the country.
The TIME pointed out a systematic fracture of the U.S. revealed by the pandemic. “Republicans and Democrats today don’t just disagree on issues; they disagree on the basic truths that structure their respective realities. Half the country gets its news from places that parrot whatever the Administration says, true or not; half does not.”
A recent report by the Washington Post said public health officials and many political leaders hoped that covid’s frightening lethality might unite the country, but the nation’s deep divisions — political and cultural — set the country on a different path.
The World Health Organization reiterated the importance of solidarity in facing the pandemic, as divisions would only create opportunities for the virus. However, even the U.S. community admitted that their country has been trapped in larger divisions due to the pandemic.
For instance, the small masks mirror the big problems of political polarization and social divide in the U.S. Some shops welcome only customers with masks, while some prevent them from entering. A survey done by the Pew Research Center on June 25 found 63 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believed that masks should be worn always, while the figure was only 29 percent among Republicans and Republican leaners.
American analytics and advisory company Gallup also discovered that 94 percent of democrats always use masks, compared to 46 percent of Republicans who said the same.
The Pew Research Center suggested a sharp divide of the two parties’ views on U.S. COVID-19 response. Eighty-eight percent of democrats said the country did a bad job in controlling the pandemic, while only 30 percent of republicans supported such point. Sixty-six percent of republicans even believe the impacts from the pandemic were exaggerated.
Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations of the U.S., said in an article that the America is one country with two nations.
The U.S. has long suffered from political polarization and social divide. What’s unfortunate is that when the pandemic is politicized, the country’s containment measures are “blackmailed” by political polarization and social divide, and the two amplify each other. Just because of the political polarization and social divide, the U.S. society is always unable to reach an agreement on the choice between saving life and developing economy.
Given the fake news that is highly politicized, truth and science are placed on the opposite side of people’s health. Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation said it’s pathetic to politicize the pandemic. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the U.S., who received serious threats from people angry over his advice on the pandemic, remarked that these attacks were a reflection of the “divisiveness of our society at political level.” Rick Bright, director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, is also pessimistic about the politicization of the pandemic, believing the U.S. is heading toward “darkest winter in modern history.”
It is much to be regretted that the social divisiveness and the out-of-control pandemic in the U.S. are continuing accelerating one another, costing numerous lives. What the U.S. citizens need are actions that can effectively curb the virus. However, their interests are still not cared about. No wonder the U.S. media had to comment that “the U.S. is sleepwalking into what could become the largest coronavirus outbreak of the pandemic so far.”
December 27, 2020
U.S. practices threaten global health security
By Zhong Sheng
The fight against COVID-19 is a major test for mankind.
In the course of the world’s response to the pandemic, there are two completely different approaches. The first one is the choice for most of the countries in the world – unity and active control measures aimed at cutting the spread of the virus, while the second one is the American way – ignoring facts and science, neglecting domestic control, politicizing the pandemic, stigmatizing other countries, withdrawing from the WHO and undermining global COVID-19 cooperation.
What goes around comes around. The White House will surely shoulder the bad consequences for its disrespect for science and public health experts, as well as its spread of false information.
“The only way we will defeat this outbreak is for all countries to work together in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Jan. 30 this year when declaring a public health emergency of international concern over the global outbreak of novel coronavirus.
Unfortunately, the world is still not working as a whole today to fight against the virus, and the WHO has to always repeat the importance of “solidarity and cooperation.” “A pandemic is not a political football. Wishful thinking or deliberate diversion will not prevent transmissions or save lives.What will save lives is science, solutions and solidarity,” Tedros said recently.
As COVID-19 control gets severer in the world, it is alarming that some U.S. politicians are trying to make “political viruses” to seek private political gains. They violated the WHO Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases, deliberately associating the novel coronavirus with specific countries and groups, which caused serious discrimination against the Chinese and even Asians. They fabricated rumors about the origin of the virus, and are addicted to blame game. The international society believes that the White House’s political viruses are far more damaging than the COVID-19 pandemic.
The global fight against COVID-19 calls for effective cooperation on multilateral platforms. However, the U.S. is still obsessed with unilateralism and hegemonic practices, acting as a destroyer and troublemaker, which has seriously threatened the global health security.
In May this year, the 73rd session of the World Health Assembly unanimously approved a resolution to combat the COVID-19 pandemic which made clear to recognize and support the WHO’s leading role. The resolution called member countries to prevent discriminative and stigmatizing practices, stop wrong and false information, enhance cooperation on developing test tools, therapeutic methods, and drugs and vaccines, and timely assess the WHO’s work on virus control. The resolution was co-drafted by over 140 countries including China. The U.S. didn’t join the drafting process, and made remarks with reservation on the approval of the resolution. It fully demonstrated its double standards on multilateral organizations and international consensus – using them when they serve its interests and abandoning them when they don’t.
In September this year, the 74th UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, voted for by an overwhelming majority of 169 countries, to urge member states to promote inclusion and unity, take strong action against racism, xenophobia, hate speech, violence and discrimination, and refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the UN Charter. It also called on member states to enable all countries to have unhindered, timely access to quality, safe, efficacious and affordable diagnosis, therapeutics, medicines and vaccines, and essential health technologies and their components, as well as equipment, for the COVID-19 response. The U.S., as one of the only two that voted against the resolution, has revealed its intention to undermine international solidarity in COVID-19 response.
In fact, the practices of certain U.S. politicians to suppress the WHO well explain their lack of a sense of responsibility on issues concerning the common future of mankind, and their practices also drew wide criticism from the international community. For instance, Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, noted that the U.S. decision to defund WHO is simply this—a crime against humanity. The Guardian also commented that the U.S. politicians’ attack on WHO damages public health around the world, calling it “ugly, dishonest, bullying and cruel.”
Viruses are a common enemy of mankind, and solidarity and cooperation remain the most powerful weapon against the pandemic. To safeguard the health of the people around the world and protect global and regional public health security call for mutual assistance. Anyone that abbreviates solidarity and cooperation would reduce the power of the world to dealt with the virus; anyone that undermines global COVID-19 cooperation is a common enemy of the world.
The U.S. has learned a lesson from its undermining practices as it sees a total of 10 million confirmed cases and over 240,000 deaths. Some U.S. politicians shall have a moment of introspection and recognize the extreme harm of unilateralism and hegemonism. Only the right path leads to a bright future.
November 16, 2020
U.S. addiction to military competition threatens global military security
By Zhong Sheng
The U.S. is a country that has the most advanced weapons in the world, but it is also one that tries the best to fan up military threat of other countries.
Not long ago, U.S. representatives once again put on a show at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, claiming Russia’s and China’s nuclear development was seriously threatening international peace and security.
Such trick of the U.S. to call black white was nothing but an excuse for the country to duck its arm control obligation, by which it tries to loosen restrictions and establish absolute military advantages.
The U.S. always ranks the first in the world regarding military expenditure. It spent over $700 billion in 2019, accounting for nearly 40 percent of the world’s total and surpassing the sum of the 10 countries that followed it. However, being armed to the teeth is not enough for certain U.S. politicians who recently upgraded their nuclear force, lowered the threshold of using nuclear weapons, deployed low yield nuclear warheads and fanned up the so-called “China-U.S.-Russia trilateral arms control negotiation” to escape from its special and primary responsibilities in nuclear disarmament. Recently, the U.S. even discussed the restarting of nuclear tests, as if it never knew that there’s a red line which can never be crossed, or intended to undermine global strategic security.
In a word, the U.S. is upholding a hegemonic approach to security that prioritizes the interests of itself, and always “fantasizes” about external threats with a distorted mindset to exaggerate its national security demand.
For instance, the country blatantly takes Russia and China as strategic competitors in its National Security Strategy, trying to provoke confrontation among major countries. In addition, seeking aerospace supremacy, the U.S. considers the outer space as a new battlefield and officially established the U.S. Space Force this year. It plans to deploy missile interceptors in the space, which will only turn the outer space into a battlefield.
Of course, the U.S. would always find a fig leaf. When it comes to disarmament and proliferation, Washington is making Compliance Report every year, pretending to be a judge that points fingers at other countries’ arm control and proliferation practices, and making itself a “role model” in this regard.
However, the fig leaf is never able to cover the country’s withdrawal from treaties and organizations. It pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Treaty on Open Skies, unsigned the Arms Trade Treaty, and stood in the way of negotiations for a protocol that includes a verification regime to the Biological Weapons Convention. The U.S. is standing on the opposite side of international justice.
As the world’s only country with chemical weapon stocks, the U.S. repeatedly postponed the elimination of chemical weapons, and is reluctant to fulfill its obligations, becoming the largest barrier in building a world free of chemical weapons.
What the U.S. does seriously undermines global strategic balance and stability, and hinders international arm control and disarmament. It has received wide condemnation from the international society. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova pointed out that the U.S. is becoming increasingly dangerous and unforeseeable in arm control.
Facts speak louder than words. The war record and military presence of the U.S. are able to astonish everyone. In the 240 years of the U.S. history, only 16 years are war-free. According to a Western scholar, only 3 among the over 190 countries recognized by the UN haven’t had a war with the U.S. or are free of the latter’s military intervention. Establishing hundreds of military bases around the world, the U.S. has deployed anti-missile systems in Asia-Pacific and Central and Eastern Europe, and seeks to deploy land-based intermediate-range missiles in Asia-Pacific and Europe to enhance its military presence and build absolute advantages. The U.S. also sends its aircraft near the airspace of other countries, its warships around the sea waters of other countries, and even shows off its muscle in name of the so-called “freedom” of navigation. Such practice goes against today’s general trend of peace and development.
Anyone that is addicted to zero-sum game and the abuse of military power has no way out facing the indestructible power of peace and justice, the facts, and brightness. It is noteworthy that no country in today’s world is able to have absolute security by its own strength, and no country can get its own stability from other countries’ turbulences. Any practice that threatens global security will be firmly opposed by the world. Let us bear in mind the great truth of history: Justice will prevail. Peace will prevail. The people will prevail.
(Zhong Sheng is a pen name often used by People’s Daily to express its views on foreign policy.)
November 2, 2020