Bola A. Akinterinwa
9/11 is the shortened form for September 11, 2001. This was the day 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four different commercial airlines and launched their very heinous attacks on the American people: two planes consciously flew to hit the Twin Towers playing host to the World Trade Centre in New York City. One plane hit the Pentagon while the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. This is what 9/11 refers to in international relations. It refers to the 2,977 victims killed innocently during the attacks. It also refers to the deadliest terrorist act in global history. And perhaps more concernedly, it refers to the failure of terrorism ab initio, as of today, and predictably, in the foreseeable future.
It should not at all be forgotten that the fourth commercial plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania crashed as a result of the courage of the passengers to challenge the terrorists and prevented the pilot from concentrating on his piloting. Even though the terrorists were not flying to escape but to go and hurt Americans by taking innocent passengers to go and die with them, and even if there had not been any fisticuff in the plane, both the passengers and the criminally-oriented pilots would have gone to hit their targets and all die, there is no disputing the fact that thousands of innocent American lives were lost. The American life, the American soul, however, has not been killed, because it cannot be neutralized. This explains why, year after year, 9/11 is strengthened, why commitment to anti-terrorism is always energized worldwide. 9/11 was 25 years old last week on September 9, 2026.
6/30 is the short form June 30, 2026. It was the first notice with deadline given by the proponents of xenophobia in South Africa to foreigners to live their country. The proponents defied the directives of their government not to imbibe xenophobic attitudes. They carried out inhuman attacks on other African compatriots. And true enough, South Africa’s xenophobic acts have a dose of Nigerianophobia. It has not simply been Afrophobia. As June 30, 2026 belongs to the dustbin of history but Afrophobia and Nigerianophobia are yet to end, a new deadline, September 30, 2026 has again been fixed for all unwanted African migrants to leave South Africa. What will happen by then? Last week, Nigerians were still brutalized and killed, prompting Nigerian parliamentarians to suspend their mission to South Africa. Is this not playing diplomacy with Nigerian lives? 9/11 is atrocious. 6/30 is notorious. What will 9/9 look like?
Terrorism and Xenophobia: The Linkages
9/11 and 6/30 have the potential to seriously undermine international security in the foreseeable future. 9/11 has presented several challenges that have prompted adoption of new security policy measures. For instance, 9/11 prompted the United States to invade Afghanistan in order to hunt down al-Qaeda and also to invade Iraq. Not only did the United States establish the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), charged with the responsibility of screening all passengers and luggage, but also created the Department of Homeland Security to protect the country against any future attacks.
On the contrary, there is nothing concrete to compel African leaders to seek to contain xenophobia in South Africa. Ghana is on record to have formally asked the African Union (AU) at the last mid-year coordination summit to debate South Africa’s xenophobic attacks. The AU Executive Council refused and suggested a continent-wide migration review rather than singling out South Africa. In the same vein, Nigeria’s Vice President, Kashim Shettima, formally urged the AU Assembly in Luanda, Angola, to place the xenophobic crisis on the AU agenda to be considered at the forthcoming 40th Ordinary Session in January 2027. The AU has not been able to act, more so that the South African government is claiming to be committed to the protection of human rights and safety and that it has the sovereign right to enforce its immigration laws. South Africa says migration should be addressed as a broader systemic issue rather than as an isolated matter. As such, neither the question of 6/30 nor 9/9 is addressed. The mania of marking 9/11 is similarly no longer addressed to strengthen anti-terror war.
Without whiff of doubt, terrorism and xenophobia have common definienda: act of destruction and use of illegal means to protest. Terrorism has been variously defined by Member States of the international community, with emphasis on three factors: the manner of action (murder, kidnapping, severe property damage, disruption of critical public systems, etc.); the intent (intimidation of the public or coercion of a government or international organization, etc.), and motive (the pursuit of a political, religious, ideological, or racial objectives).
For the U.S., a distinction is made between international and domestic terrorism. International terrorism refers to violent, dangerous acts that transcend national borders and aimed at coercing a civilian population or influencing government policy through mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Domestic terrorism also has the same features of international terrorism except that the acts do take place within the jurisdictional competence of the U.S. As good as this distinction may be, it is, at best, meaningless because it does not reflect the situational reality of how terrorism is organized. Put differently, the thinking, the preparation, etc. of terrorism can take place in one country while the manifestation of it can take place in a completely different country. In other words, terrorism can be a continuum in terms of preparation. The preparation can have a domestic character and the implementation can be international by locus delicti. This is one reason it has been difficult to have a definitional consensus on terrorism.
At the level of the United Nations, for example, there are the UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1373 (2001) and UNSC 1566 (2004). Resolution 1373 was an immediate response to 9/11. It was adopted on 28 September 2001. It is a legally-binding resolution that suppresses terrorism financing by criminalizing any voluntary collection or provision of funds for terrorist acts. The resolution freezes assets and economic resources of facilitators or whoever is involved in any act of terrorism. The importance of UNSC Resolution 1373 was to the extent that a Counter-Terrorism Committee was created to oversee the implementation of the resolution. The Committee comprises all the 15-Member States of the UNSC.
The spirit of the UNSC Resolution 1566 of 2004 was not different. It not only strengthened resolution 1373, but also attempted to define terrorism as criminal acts directed at civilians with the intent to take people into hostage, or cause death, or cause serious bodily injury. More importantly, the resolution considers that no act of terrorism can be justifiable, especially that terrorism is designed to provoke a state of terror and intimidate a population, or compel a government or an international organization to act or abstain from acting.
In this regard, terrorism can be likened to xenophobic acts. Etymologically, terrorism is traceable to the time of French Revolution in 1789. Terror, as a word, originated from terrere, a Latin word, meaning ‘to frighten’ or ‘to tremble.’ Terrorism, as a political concept, was first popularized during the French Revolution, and particularly during what is referred to as the ‘Reign of Terror,’ from 1793 to 1794 when the Jacobin regime, under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, adopted systematic violence to project the new revolutionary government against perceived internal enemies. This old type of terrorism is quite different from the modern-day terrorism. The old type was state-sponsored and top-down violence in design, while the modern-day terrorism is essentially associated with non-state actors. States and civilians are involved.
Xenophobia involves terrorist methods. We believe that there is really nothing much wrong if South Africans have hatred for foreigners or for any given people. Where is there is much wrong is when South Africans engage in the use of brutal violence in making a case against unwanted foreigners. They consciously kill under the watch of the South African government. Xenophobic attacks are therefore not different from the ‘Propaganda of the Deed’ in the 20th Century when Anarchists in Europe and the U.S. opted to use bombs and dynamite in the strong belief that public violence was a more powerful tool for political awakening than words. The truth is that South Africans do not believe in diplomacy as a reliable tool to get out unwanted foreigners from their country.
In spite of David C. Rapoport’s theory of Four Waves of modern terrorism – the anarchist Wave (1880s-1920s), the Anti-Colonial Wave (1920s-1960s), the New Left Wave (1960s-1980s), and the Religious Wave (from 1979 to date) – terrorism has been used as an instrument of politics by both state and non-state actors. When the United States was trying to impose its view that those fighting apartheid in South Africa were terrorist, and therefore was preaching the gospel of ‘Constructive Engagement,’ Africa, led by Nigeria, countered that those fighting apartheid and racial discrimination were Liberation Movements and cannot be rightly considered as terrorists.
Most unfortunately, many Nigerians have forgotten that Nigeria’s national passport that was patterned after that of Britain, had, up till the late 1960s, in the inner back cover a provision that every holder of the passport should use whatever means available to the holder, to fight apartheid. In fact, Nigeria formulated an exception to the rule of non-intervention under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, arguing that apartheid could not be accepted as falling under the exclusive domestic competence of South Africa. In 1963, Dr. Jaja Wachukwu, as Minister of External Affairs, formulated ‘No Compromise with apartheid’ as a fundamental principle of Nigeria’s foreign policy.
With apartheid believed to have been thrown into the garbage of history, xenophobia is replacing it. It is resuscitating it, but the resurrection is threatening regional security, and particularly continental economic integration, political unity, and African solidarity. And this cannot but be more so with the policy of MAGA under President Donald Trump.
How Global Security is undermined by MAGA
Making America Great Again (MAGA) is a strategic and main focus of United States (U.S.) foreign policy under Donald John Trump, the 45th and 47th President of the U.S. Achieving MAGA is largely predicated on the use of manu militari methods. It is within the context of this manu militari that Venezuela was flagrantly aggressed by President Trump and that President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores Maduro, were kidnapped and flown to the U.S. for prosecution in violation of the basic principles of international law. It was also within the same context of manu militari that the Gulf of Mexico and the Lake Ontario were renamed Gulf of America and Lake America respectively. And perhaps now more disturbingly, President Trump is dreaming of renaming the Strait of Hormuz. On Thursday, 10th September, 2026 President Trump suggested the need to rename the Strait of Hormuz after himself, that is, ‘Trump Strait,’ considering that the U.S. is the one controlling the Strait and predicting lower oil prices. Donald Trump is yet to understand the implications of always seeking to fish in troubled waters.
As reported by the Agence France Presse (AFP), President Trump noted as follows: ‘now that we have it under U.S.A. control, should we change the name Hormuz Strait to Trump Strait? Like America itself, it would be hotter than ever before!’ Additionally, the AFP has it that ‘the White House later posted a map of the Gulf on social media with his suggested name, adding, ‘it’s got a nice ring to it.’ Perhaps more recklessly, President has repeatedly been claiming sovereignty over the Strait and ‘even posting a map showing the waterway as a “new U.S. territory.’ Is this development a manifestation of the emerging new world order? President Trump has renamed the Kennedy Arts Centre after himself, while the US Treasury has also issued $1coins featuring Trump’s face to mark the 250th anniversary of US independence. Explained interrogatively, is MAGA to promote the U.S. or to promote Donald Trump? Without any iota of doubt, the implementation of MAGA has not in any good way enhanced US image in international relations. On the contrary, it is straining U.S. ties with its allies.
For example, Israelo-American aggression on Iran has created a special misunderstanding between Iran, on the one hand, and Iranian neighbours who are allies of the U.S., on the other. In this regard, President Trump has proposed a ‘Project Freedom’ which is a military initiative meant to provide armed escorts for commercial oil tankers that will be passing through the blockaded Strait of Hormuz and which Donald Trump is still dreaming to have renamed after him.
Saudi Arabia rejected the initiative on the grounds that the Saudi Crown, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, only learnt about the initiative on the social media. In annoyance, the Saudi Crown has simply blocked the U.S. military from using the Saudi airspace to aggress anyone. Besides, Saudi Arabia does not want to be dragged into a naval confrontation with Iran that has the potential to put Saudi infrastructure destroyed. In the eyes of Saudi Arabia, it is better to strengthen the Pakistani-led diplomacy to end the war permanently, rather than expanding the military blockade. And objectively enough, Saudi Arabia has also been compelled to move its crude oil to the Red sea for export, but this has been challenged by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels who are advancing along the Yemeni coast. Saudi Arabia does not see any extension of the war in Iran as being in its national interest.
In reaction, the United States, apparently recognizing its power limitations, especially from the perspective that it cannot protect its military bases without the Saudi airspace support, has shelved its mission as reported by the New York Times. Also in reaction to the Saudi refusal, Donald Trump has threatened to delay air defense system shipments to Saudi Arabia. Even though U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, reportedly snubbed Riyadh during his Middle East tour, there is no disputing the fact that Washington is already considering the need to draw down its troop presence in the country.
From the foregoing experience of Saudi Arabia, we posit here that the implementation of Donald Trump’s MAGA has the potential, not only to undermine U.S. national security, in particular, if Americans adopt policies meant to be implemented outside of their jurisdictional competence do not have the consent of allies and protocolar courtesy of first informing the very countries expected to assist in the implementation of the policies. More interestingly, U.S. national and international security cannot but be seriously undermined if the U.S. also carelessly ignores the reasons that prompted the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers (World Trade Center) and the Pentagon.
It should be recalled that, following the 1991 Gulf War, the late Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian by ius sanguinis, and reportedly, a CIA agent, was vehemently opposed to the long-term positioning of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, generally considered the chief host of Islam’s holiest sites in Mecca and Medina. Osama bin Laden was against U.S. support for Israel during conflicts involving Palestinian and, particularly, during the 1982 Lebanon War. The al-Qaeda was not only against the sanctions meted out to Iraq and the Western military interventions in Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir and the Balkans, but also vehemently opposed to the U.S. support for Middle Eastern regimes considered as very corrupt and un-Islamic. As Brookings has it, Bin Laden had considered that a high-profile attack on U.S. soil would provoke a massive military response, which would drag the U.S. into protracted wars in the Muslim world. And more importantly, ‘Al-Qaeda hoped these counter-attacks would exhaust the U.S. economically and rally Muslims to overthrow secular governments in the Middle East, (and) ultimately establishing a pan-Islamist rule.’
Bin Laden is dead but the struggle to establish a pan-Islamist rule has not abated. Even Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi made it clear to the Government of Nigeria in 2011 that Nigeria would not know peace until Nigeria is divided into Muslim North and Christian South. The more the Government of Nigeria bombs the terrorists, the more hardened and resolute the boko haramists. And true enough, many of them are in government. Former President Goodluck Jonathan confessed the existence of Boko Haram agents in his government.
Consequently, if Osama bin Laden pulled down the World Trade Centre in protest against U.S. policy in the Arab world, especially in terms of the vehement opposition to U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, and if, for new reasons of force majeure, Saudi Arabia is now towing the line of Osama bin Laden by denying the U.S. the right to use its airspace, a decision that is prompting Donald Trump to now want to move its military bases from Saudi Arabia, MAGA, as a foreign policy, cannot be said to have helped Americans to sustain their great power status. It has only been undermining it. This is why Nigeria must learn lessons from MAGA and from South Africa’s Nigerianophobia.
In essence, 9/11 is terrorism, a method of political violence. 9/30 is xenophobia, an attitude of fear of, and hatred toward, foreigners. Terrorism and xenophobia are intertwined by their definienda, as rightly categorized by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) which has categorised a rising global threat as XRIRB (a United Nations term used to describe any hate-motivated violence, such as terrorist attacks on the basis of Xenophobia, Racism, and other forms of Intolerance such as in the case of misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hostility vis-à-vis minorities and LGBTQ+ community. Indisputably, xenophobia creates a barrier between the local people and foreigners. Terrorism largely relies on an identical psychological cleavage according to which foreigners from a certain country or of minoritised faith, or government loyalists are dehumanized in order to justify violence. Both terrorism and xenophobia are driven by threat perception and fear: while xenophobia is driven by a perceived threat, terrorism manipulates the social anxieties and threat perceptions aimed at engineering widespread public distress in order to force political or societal change. Consequently, Nigeria must now go beyond the diplomacy of XRIRB or what the European Union calls VRWE (Violent Right-Wing Extremism) by asking South Africans to leave Nigeria the way Nigerians have been compelled to leave South Africa. The late Foreign Minister, Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru applied the principle of reciprocity when South Africa started its Yellow Card diplomacy. It worked. When Nigerians reciprocated the South African violence on Nigerian businesses in South Africa, the language was clearly understood by South Africa. Reciprocity is what is required as interdependence is still a major dynamic of international relations.