by Collins Nweke

There is no gentler way to say it: Nigeria has failed its people. For too long, the world’s most populous Black nation has lurched from crisis to crisis. It is governed not by vision but by accident. Each election cycle has promised hope. But citizens end up with recycled mediocrity. Corruption remains institutionalized. Infrastructure is an apology. Public education is steadily  crumbling. Private education is out of the reach of the public. Power supply is erratic. Insecurity is rampant. Poverty has deepened. The slap in the face is that a bloated elite still controls wealth. They laugh their way to foreign banks.

The facts are not debatable.

• In 1960, Nigeria had a GDP per capita comparable to Malaysia. Today, Malaysia is a high-income economy while Nigeria wrestles with multidimensional poverty.
• A nation blessed with oil has repeatedly faced fuel scarcity.
• A country famed for its brilliant minds exports its best talents to build other nations’ economies. Meanwhile, its own system atrophies.
• Insecurity has turned vast parts of the country into warzones. Bandits, terrorists, and kidnappers dictate the terms of life and death in these areas.

Nigeria has become a betrayal on an industrial scale. Successive governments, military and civilian, have largely mortgaged the country’s promise for personal gain or parochial interest. The trust between citizen and state has been broken, not once. But repeatedly, brutally, until the very idea of “nationhood” seems almost satirical. Nigeria is not, by any unbiased measure, living up to the title of “Giant of Africa.” At best Nigeria is a giant on its knees. A case study in wasted potential.

Despite all of these, Nigeria remains one of the most compelling paradoxes in human history. It is a country that refuses to die. Yes there is despair but Nigeria can’t die because of its competitive advantages shimmer with stubborn resilience:

• A youth bulge that is unmatched: over 60% of Nigerians are under the age of 25. No other African nation has this concentration of energetic, digitally connected, fiercely entrepreneurial youth.
• A diaspora that sends home over $20 billion annually. An economic army spread across the globe, investing not just money but ideas and influence back into the homeland.
• Natural resources still abound: oil, gas, and solid minerals. Even more precious are the untapped riches of renewable energy—sun, wind, and water.
• Nigeria is a cultural capital that is unrivaled. This is clear in music (Afrobeats), literature, fashion, and film (Nollywood). Nigeria is already a global power, albeit soft power.
• A strategic geographical position that offers a gateway between West Africa and the global economy.

If leadership, real leadership, were to finally align with the people’s tenacity, Nigeria could pivot from basket case to beacon.

Not slowly. Not incrementally. Seismically.

The foundation of Nigeria’s rebirth must be brutal honesty and fearless reform.

We must stop flattering incompetence. We must stop rewarding theft with applause. We must stop allowing ethnic and religious divisions to be weaponized against the common good.

The new Nigeria will not emerge from the corridors of Abuja alone. It will rise from tech hubs in Lagos. It will rise from farms in Benue. It will emerge from classrooms in Enugu. It will rise from oilfields in Bayelsa and voting booths in Sokoto. It will rise when we place merit over mediocrity, innovation over inertia, service over selfishness. It will rise when the Nigerian passport becomes once again a badge of pride, not an apology.

We must envision a nation that is:

• Governed by competence, not connections.
• Fueled by industries of the mind, not just commodities of the earth.
• Measured by how it treats its weakest, not just how it enriches its strongest.

This is not wishful thinking. It is a mandate that history demands.

For if Nigeria rises, Africa rises. If Nigeria remains broken, Africa’s own renaissance is delayed.

Nigeria is not irredeemable.

I may not say it out when often I hear that Nigeria is finished. But my mind loudly says: No, Nigeria is unfinished. I know that I hear it alone! But that is fine because I know that Nigeria is a  story still being written. Stained, yes, but not beyond beauty. The nation has for so long been cursed. It has been cursed by bad leadership. But blessed with a greatness that no failed government can ever fully extinguish.

The time for excuses is over. The time for the rebirth has come.Nigeria must rise — not tomorrow, not someday, but now! And it will. Because the soul of Nigeria, though battered, remains unconquered.

Upfront I want to say that it would be a mistake and a disservice to reality, to declare multiculturalism dead. It is, instead, undergoing a difficult, sometimes painful, evolution. This evolution is pensive. I have lived this tension firsthand. I am a husband raising a family between cultures. I am a father watching my European-born sons navigate identity in spaces that sometimes subtly questioned their belonging. I am a first-time young grandfather now contemplating what Europe my grandson will inherit. He is a beautiful mix of African Nigerian and European Belgian heritage. Will he be capable of entering any room on this continent not as a “token” of diversity? Will he be capable to enter simply as a European, fully at home?

That evidence of the evolution is there if we choose to see it. We see it in our sons and their generation. They do not beg for belonging. But we raised them to claim it confidently as their right. The claim is clear in the stories we hear of job interviews they and their peers attend, where their skills, not colour, are put in the focus. It is clear in daring to negotiate a pay raise audaciously. This comes after a positive work evaluation. They use a tone that suggests they are happy to leave if not sufficiently appreciated. Younger generations of different colours and creed across Belgium and Europe are more cosmopolitan. They are not chained to narrow definitions of identity. They are growing up bilingual, trilingual, seamlessly blending cultures. Intercultural marriages are steadily increasing. Public life, once overwhelmingly homogenous, is beginning to reflect the diverse societies it serves. The other reality that we must choose to see is that there remains much ground to cover.

When I first arrived in Belgium, wide-eyed and armed with youthful idealism, the word “multiculturalism” seemed like a promise. I saw it as a living testament that people from all walks of life could coexist, contribute, and thrive together. It wasn’t long before I realized a disparity existed. The ideal was spoken about in polished policy documents and political speeches. However, its practice was more complicated and deeply human. The first reality that hit me involved a debate. Should our Ostend City Council do a needs analysis of the living conditions of new migrants? Or should they adopt and adapt one done elsewhere? The debate revealed a divide. Some genuinely want to know the needs of new co-inhabitants. Others didn’t care if a new local integration policy was based on skewed data. They simply want to be seen as having done something required of them by higher authorities.

I am a first-generation Nigerian diaspora. I carried more than just my suitcase. I also carried my culture, my dreams, and my resolve. Over the years, I have watched Belgium, and indeed Europe, wrestle with the beauty and the burden of diversity. The truth is, multiculturalism here is a work in progress. It is messy, imperfect, often frustrating, but, at its core, full of promise.

I experienced this duality firsthand when I joined the Belgian Civil Service in the Municipal Department of Social Welfare. Before my entry, many of those I would eventually call colleagues only knew me from a distance. As a co-social activist, a neighbour, a community member, an “outsider-friend,” if you will. But becoming a colleague was different; a big Black man occupying that professional space was, for many, an unfamiliar sight. It was not hostility in the open sense. Instead, there was a persistent tension that hovered in small gestures. There were also quiet exclusions, subtle intimidation, and awkward silences.

I persevered because I had to. I did it not just for myself as first in the role. I did it for the other migrants who looked up to me. They believed their dreams could find space here too. Slowly, for most, the discomfort gave way to acceptance. But for a tiny minority, it remained unacceptable till the end. Their frozen stares and silent disapproval were daily reminders that the journey towards true multiculturalism is not linear. It is layered with human frailty. Still, I walked the path with my head high. I knew that every small victory widened the road for those who would come after me.

The most defining moment of my public life came when I was elected. I was the first non-Belgian-born person to hold political office in West Flanders. It was historic, yet deeply disorienting for many. It wasn’t overt rejection I faced, but a palpable uncertainty. Many simply didn’t know what to do with me and my broken Dutch. They were unsure how to place me. Do I understand them and their culture enough as African to make municipal laws for them? They struggled to welcome me into a tradition. Until then, it had seen political leadership through only one cultural lens.

But again, I leaned not on validation, but on my mandate. My mandate is the sacred trust of the people who elected me. People who saw in me not just an outsider, but a partner in their collective future. People who saw beyond my deep accent. I navigated the complex terrains of politics. Subtle exclusions often hurt more than explicit ones. These experiences taught me the value of resilience over resentment. It taught me that representation is not just about occupying a seat at the table. It’s about reshaping the table itself. This allows for many more seats to be added for all who are yet to come.

Increasingly, the future of Europe must go beyond multiculturalism, which is the respectful coexistence of distinct communities. It should move toward interculturalism. Here, genuine dialogue, interaction, and mutual transformation become the norm. Mine was Europe of multiculturalism. It was about learning to live side by side. The Europe I dream of for my grandson is that of interculturalism. It should be about daring to live together, hand in hand. Not in fear of losing our distinctiveness, but in the confidence that our shared humanity enriches us all. Stated differently, multiculturalism brought us thus far; interculturalism should take us further. Multiculturalism and interculturalism in Europe are not about achieving perfect harmony. They are about the willingness to keep trying, to keep talking, and to keep building. Together!

My own journey has taught me a few things. Perseverance, compassion, and open-hearted honesty are still the best compasses we have. And with those in hand, I remain an optimist. Not a blind one, but a stubborn one. Even though we have stumbled, I believe in Belgium. I believe Europe and all of us who call it home will find a way ahead. Not just side by side, but hand in hand. When, not if we succeed, multiculturalism will give way for interculturalism. It will no longer be an embattled concept in Belgium and Europe. It will simply be the way things are. That should be the Europe worth fighting for.

These reflections by Collins Nweke came on the heels of #EuropeDay2025. Belgian of Nigerian roots, Collins is former Green Councillor at Ostend City Council Belgium. He is a husband, active father and grandfather who sees himself as a global citizen.

Trump has inadvertently done the impossible. He made the EU stronger and brought the UK closer to the EU than even when we were in it. A European military is now a certainty. It will include the UK and other European countries not in the EU.

Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, and Russia strengthened. Washington has become the court of Nero, a fiery emperor, submissive courtiers, and a ketamine-fueled jester in charge of purging the civil service.

This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you. He will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies. He will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.

The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin. But Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.

Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media.

This is not an illiberal drift. It is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks, and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution.

I have faith in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, and now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor.

Eight days ago, at the very moment that Trump was rubbing Macron’s back in the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops.

Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign. Tonight, he took another step into infamy by stopping the delivery of weapons that had been promised. What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it.

And first of all, let’s not be mistaken. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia, and Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin.

The countries of the South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it. What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with its first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territory by force. This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the attacked, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries.

Mine is Greenland, Panama, and Canada. You are Ukraine, the Baltics and Eastern Europe. He is Taiwan and the China Sea. At the parties of the oligarchs of the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago, this is called “diplomatic realism.” So we are alone. But the talk that Putin can not be resisted is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is in bad shape. In three years, the so-called second largest army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country three times less populated.

Interest rates at 25%, the collapse of foreign exchange and gold reserves, the demographic collapse show that it is on the brink of the abyss. The American helping hand to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made in a war.

The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands and that they have three imperatives.

Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American abandonment, so that it holds, and of course to impose its presence and that of Europe in any negotiation.

This will be expensive. It will be necessary to end the taboo of the use of frozen Russian assets. It will be necessary to circumvent Moscow’s accomplices within Europe itself by a coalition of only the willing countries, with, of course, the United Kingdom.

Second, demand that any agreement be accompanied by the return of kidnapped children, prisoners, and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia, and Minsk, we know what agreements with Putin are worth. These guarantees require sufficient military force to prevent a new invasion.

Finally, and this is the most urgent, because it is what will take the most time, we must build the neglected European defence, to the benefit of the American umbrella since 1945 and scuttled since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the leaders of today’s democratic Europe will be judged in the history books. Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. This is to recognize that France has been right for decades in arguing for strategic autonomy.

It remains to be built. It will be necessary to invest massively, to strengthen the European Defence Fund outside the Maastricht debt criteria, to harmonize weapons and munitions systems, to accelerate the entry into the Union of Ukraine, which is today the leading European army, to rethink the place and conditions of nuclear deterrence based on French and British capabilities, to relaunch the anti-missile shield and satellite programs.

The plan announced yesterday by Ursula von der Leyen is a very good starting point. And much more will be needed. Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power again. In a word, the Draghi report will have to be implemented. For good. But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament. We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and especially in the face of Putin’s cronies, the extreme right and the extreme left. They argued again yesterday in the National Assembly, Mr Prime Minister, before you, against European unity, against European defense.

They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain at the beck and call of Putin. Peace for the collaborators who have refused any aid to the Ukrainians for three years. Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in the last few days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and all the crazy decisions taken in the last month have finally made the Americans react.

Polls are falling. Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical. The Trumpists are no longer in their majesty. They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court, and social networks. But in American history, the freedom fighters have always prevailed. They are beginning to raise their heads.

The fate of Ukraine is being decided in the trenches. It also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy. Our ability to unite Europeans is crucial. We need to find the means for their common defense. Europe must again become the power it once was in history. It hesitates to become that power again. Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost. The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianism of the 21st century.

Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.

This is the full text of Claude Malhuret, French Prime Minister, speaking to the French Senate Tuesday 4 March 2025.