Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Aili Mari Tripp, Vilas Research Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Nigeria “must do more to protect Christians,” a senior U.S. State Department official demanded on Jan. 22, 2026, during a high-level security meeting in the African nation’s capital, Abuja.

The comment followed an attack just days earlier in which more than 160 worshipers were kidnapped from three churches in Nigeria’s northern Kaduna state.

The security meeting came a month after the United States, in cooperation with the Nigerian government, launched an airstrike from a U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea on the northwest Sokoto state. During the Christmas Day incident, 16 Tomahawk missiles costing around US$32 million hit several locations the U.S. claimed were being used by extremist groups.

There were no verifiable casualties, although the strike did send a signal that the U.S. administration is willing to take military action when it is deemed necessary. President Donald Trump heralded the attack a “Christmas present” to Christians and later warned that there would be more strikes if the killings of Christians continued.

As a scholar of African politics, I know that calling the insurgency in Nigeria a persecution of Christians – as the U.S. administration has repeatedly done – is simplistic and ill-informed. Yes, Christians have been killed and kidnapped as part of the prolonged terrorism campaign by Boko Haram and other extremist groups. But so too have other groups in the country, including Muslims. Moreover, the religious identity of the victims masks other motives of the militant groups involved.

I recently carried out interviews in Maiduguri, Borno State – the epicenter of Boko Haram activities in northeast Nigeria – as part of research into interfaith efforts to counter threats from Islamic extremists. For many of those interviewed, the insurgency and violence have often served to unite Nigerians with different religious identities against a common enemy: the groups making their life a misery. The danger of Trump’s narrative of this being a war on Christians is that it could undermine such efforts to build cross-community trust.

A complex conflict

Since 2009 there have been 54,000 deaths related to the violence in Nigeria and the surrounding Lake Chad region, according to independent violence monitor ACLED.

The Christmas airstrike by the U.S. was in northwest Nigeria, targeting a small group of Lakurawa militants. But 85% of all incidents related to Islamic fighters in 2025 were in northeast Nigeria, according to ACLED.

Northern Nigeria is primarily populated by Muslims, in contrast to the whole of the country, whose 240 million people are split roughly 56%-43% between Muslims and Christians.

Many of those killed and abducted in the insurgency in the north have been Christian. But the exclusive focus on Christians by the U.S. administration overlooks the complex realities behind the violence in Nigeria, which incorporates not just extremist groups but also farmer-herder tensions, land and water disputes exacerbated by climate change, ethnic rivalries, poverty and organized criminal gangs referred to as “bandits.”

Boko Haram, which regards the Nigerian state as its main target, has killed both Christians and Muslims, as has the Ansaru, an al-Qaida affiliate. The Islamic State – West Africa Province, another major insurgency group, targets state forces and Christians.

While the most recent high-profile attacks have been on churches, Boko Haram also targets markets, mosques and homes. They are opportunistic attacks that don’t discriminate between Muslims and Christians.

To be sure, the Nigerian government’s response to the insurgency has been inadequate. But again, the reasons are complex and the result of a confluence of factors, including corruption in the security sector, negligence and the difficulty of targeting groups that employ guerrilla tactics outside of government control, which make them especially elusive. Political factors may also be at play, since elements within the Nigerian government may be complicit with northern politicians backing some of the land-grabbing and kidnapping bandits.

Even with these barriers, some progress has been made. According to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, Boko Haram attacks have declined by 50% since 2014-2016, when they were most active, although rates have been increasing again since 2023.

Interfaith efforts

The Nigerian government itself has welcomed assistance from the U.S. targeting insurgents, but with the proviso that Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected.

The concern is that military action on the part of the U.S. under the guise of protecting Christians in Nigeria could make matters worse. It risks exacerbating tensions within the country and giving credence to those in Nigeria and abroad who focus only on the killing of Christians for their own narrow purposes.

At the same time, it could undermine the efforts of civil society organizations and women’s associations, in particular, that have worked hard to build interfaith trust between Muslims and Christians to tackle the insurgency threat.

Some of these organizations, such as the Women of Faith Peacebuilding Network, have been at the forefront of the fight against militant groups. An interfaith movement founded in 2011, it now comprises over 10,000 Christian and Muslim women. It carries out vocational training and promotes interfaith dialogue and strategies to reduce conflict.

Following the abduction of over 300 schoolgirls by Boko Haram in Chibok, Borno State, in 2014, a coalition of women’s rights organizations – comprising both Christian and Muslim members – mobilized to protest the kidnappings.

The Federation of Muslim Women’s Associations in Nigeria, or FOMWAN, is another organization that is actively engaged in interfaith initiatives nationwide. In a January 2024 interview, a FOMWAN member based in Maiduguri told me that the Boko Haram crisis has united women across religious divides more than ever before.

Maryam, whose name I have changed along with other interviewees to protect their identity, explained: “FOMWAN has been in existence for many years before the insurgency. And in our activities we had been teaching our Muslim women religious tolerance in Borno. But the insurgency has made us put more efforts into making sure there is religious tolerance among Muslims and Christians.”

A Christian evangelist preacher, Mary, told me that working together had significantly reduced the mutual fear and mistrust between Muslims and Christians. Before the rise of Boko Haram, interfaith collaboration between the two groups was low. But today, she noted, it is far higher.

“We came to understand that this set of people doing this killing are neither Christian nor Muslim. They’re working for selfish interests, not for religious interests. We now strategize and come together to work as one. The key issue to (the conflict) is poverty. The only solution is for us is to speak with one voice. That’s the only way for us to survive.”

‘Each other’s keeper’

The U.S. administration would, I believe, do well to listen to the voices of these Christian and Muslim peacebuilders in northern Nigeria who live with the daily threat of violence.

Their lived experience has informed an approach to Nigeria’s insurgency based on shared purpose that cuts across religious divides.

In the words of activist Mama Pro, when asked why she was so keen to build interfaith bridges in Northern Nigeria: “We are always each other’s keeper.”

Aili Mari Tripp receives funding from National Science Foundation.

– ref. Trump’s framing of Nigeria insurgency as a war on Christians risks undermining interfaith peacebuilding – https://theconversation.com/trumps-framing-of-nigeria-insurgency-as-a-war-on-christians-risks-undermining-interfaith-peacebuilding-272418

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ronald S. Green, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Coastal Carolina University

Over the past two decades, the concept of mindfulness has become hugely popular around the world. An increasingly ubiquitous part of society, it’s taught everywhere from workplaces and schools to sports programs and the military.

On social media, television and wellness apps, mindfulness is often shown as one simple thing – staying calm and paying attention to the moment.

Large companies like Google use mindfulness programs to help employees stay focused and less stressed. Hospitals use it to help people manage pain and improve mental health. Millions of people now use mindfulness apps that promise everything from lowering stress to sleeping better.

But as a professor of religious studies who has spent years examining how mindfulness is defined and practiced across different traditions and historical periods, I’ve noticed a surprising problem beneath the current surge of enthusiasm: Scientists, clinicians and educators still don’t agree on what mindfulness actually is – or how to measure it.

Because different researchers measure different things under the label “mindfulness,” two studies can give very different pictures of what the practice actually does. For someone choosing a meditation app or program based on research findings, this matters.

The study you’re relying on may be testing a skill like attention, emotional calm, or self-kindness that isn’t the one you’re hoping to develop. This makes it harder to compare results and can leave people unsure about which approach will genuinely help them in daily life.

From ancient traditions to modern science

Mindfulness has deep roots in Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh and other Asian contemplative lineages. The Buddhist “Satipatthana Sutta: The Foundations of Mindfulness” emphasizes moment-to-moment observation of body and mind.

The Hindu concept of “dhyāna,” or contemplation, cultivates steady focus on the breath or a mantra; Jain “samayika,” or practice of equanimity, develops calm balance toward all beings; and Sikh “simran,” or continuous remembrance, dissolves self-centered thought into a deeper awareness of the underlying reality in each moment.

In the late 20th century, teachers and clinicians began adapting these techniques for secular settings, most notably through mindfulness-based stress reduction and other therapeutic programs. Since then, mindfulness has migrated into psychology, medicine, education and even corporate wellness.

It has become a widely used – though often differently defined – tool across scientific and professional fields.

Why scientists disagree about mindfulness

In discussing the modern application of mindfulness in fields like psychology, the definitional challenge is front and center. Indeed, different researchers focus on different things and then design their tests around those ideas.

Some scientists see mindfulness mainly in terms of emphasizing attention and paying close attention to what’s happening right now.

Other researchers define the concept in terms of emotional management and staying calm when things get stressful.

Another cohort of mindfulness studies emphasizes self-compassion, meaning being kind to yourself when you make mistakes.

And still others focus on moral awareness, the idea that mindfulness should help people make wiser, more ethical choices.

These differences become obvious when you look at the tests researchers use to measure mindfulness. The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, or MAAS, asks about how well someone stays focused on the present moment. The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory – FMI – asks whether a person can notice thoughts and feelings as they come and accept them without judgment. The Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences – CHIME – adds something most other tests leave out: questions about ethical awareness and making wise, moral choices.

As a result, comparative research can be tricky, and it can also be confusing for people who want to be more mindful but aren’t sure which path to take. Different programs may rely on different definitions of mindfulness, so the skills they teach and the benefits they promise can vary a lot.

This means that someone choosing a mindfulness course or app might end up learning something very different from what they expected unless they understand how that particular program defines and measures mindfulness.

Why different scales measure different things

John Dunne, a Buddhist philosophy scholar at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, offers a helpful explanation if you’ve ever wondered why everyone seems to talk about mindfulness in a different way. Dunne says mindfulness isn’t one single thing, but a “family” of related practices shaped by different traditions, purposes and cultural backgrounds.

This explains why scientists and people trying to be mindful often end up talking past each other. If one study measures attention and another measures compassion, their results won’t line up. And if you’re trying to practice mindfulness, it matters whether you’re following a path that focuses on calming your mind, being kind to yourself, or making ethically aware choices.

Why this matters

Because mindfulness isn’t just one thing, that affects how it’s studied, practiced and taught. That’s important both at the institutional and individual level.

Whether for places like schools and health care, a mindfulness program designed to reduce stress will look very different from one that teaches compassion or ethical awareness.

Without clarity, teachers, doctors and counselors may not know which approach works best for their goals. The same rough idea applies in business for organizational effectiveness and stress management.

Despite the disagreements, research does show that different forms of mindfulness can produce different kinds of benefits. Practices that sharpen attention to the moment are associated with improved focus and workplace performance.

Approaches oriented towards acceptance tend to help people better manage stress, anxiety and chronic pain. A focus on compassion-based methods can support emotional resilience. Programs that emphasize ethical awareness may promote more thoughtful, prosocial behavior.

These varied outcomes help explain why researchers continue to debate which definition of “mindfulness” should guide scientific study.

For anyone practicing mindfulness as an individual, this is a reminder to choose practices that fit your needs.

Ronald S. Green does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Not all mindfulness is the same – here’s why it matters for health and happiness – https://theconversation.com/not-all-mindfulness-is-the-same-heres-why-it-matters-for-health-and-happiness-264096

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Peter Harris, Associate Professor of Political Science, Colorado State University

America’s role in the world is changing. If this wasn’t obvious before, it should be now, following President Donald Trump’s efforts to take over Greenland and his visibly strained relations with traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere.

But how much will the world change if America’s stance is different?

Some scholars of international relations argue that because Washington has been central to global governance for so long, Trump’s “America First” turn – suggesting isolationism on some issues and unilateral action on others – spells the end of the international order as we’ve known it.

The most pessimistic analysts caution that the era of “Pax Americana,” or the long period of relative world calm since World War II due to U.S. leadership, is coming to a close. They forecast a turbulent transition to a more chaotic world.

This view may well prove correct in the long run. But it is too early to say with confidence. As a scholar who studies U.S. foreign policy, I see some grounds for optimism. The world can become a more just, stable and secure place despite the diminishment of American leadership.

For the remaining three years of Trump’s presidency, all bets are off. Trump is famously difficult to predict. That world leaders genuinely believed in recent weeks that the United States could invade Greenland – and still might – should give pause to anyone who thinks they can foretell the remainder of Trump’s second term.

The unprecedented raid on Venezuela and Trump’s oscillation between threatening Iran and calling for negotiations with Tehran provide additional examples of Trump’s volatile foreign policy maneuvers.

But the long-term trends are clear: The United States is losing its enthusiasm (and capacity) for global leadership. The rest of the world can assume that, after Trump, there will continue to be a decline in America’s participation in world affairs. His recent actions suggest America’s security guarantees to others will become more dubious, its markets will become less accessible to foreigners, and its support for international institutions will weaken.

Does this mean a cascade of disorder for smaller nations? Perhaps – but not necessarily.

Are US allies more vulnerable?

Certainly U.S. foreign policy and its wars and other actions abroad have sparked criticism over the past few decades. Still, the prospect of U.S. retrenchment understandably causes anxiety for those who have long sheltered under America’s security umbrella.

Once U.S. forces, spread throughout the globe, have decamped to the continental United States, the argument goes, there won’t be much stopping large countries such as Russia and China from steamrolling their vulnerable neighbors in Europe and East Asia.

This is an overly pessimistic assessment, in my view. It must be remembered that America’s alliance commitments and vast military deployments date from the early Cold War of the 1950s, an era that bears few similarities with the present day. Back then, U.S. forces were needed to deter the Soviet Union and China from attacking their neighbors, who were almost uniformly weak and impoverished following the Second World War.

Today, the European members of NATO and America’s allies in Asia are among the world’s wealthiest countries. These governments are easily rich enough to afford the sort of national militaries needed to deter potential aggressors and uphold stability in their respective regions. Indeed, they can likely do a better job of securing themselves than the United States presently manages on their behalf.

Preserving free trade

Will the world become poorer and perhaps more dangerous if global economic integration falls by the wayside?

This is a reasonable concern given the standard view that free trade leads to economic growth and, in turn, that economic growth can help foster world peace.

But again, it is wrong to assume that the worst will happen. Instead of accepting that globalization is irreversibly in retreat, there is every chance that governments will relearn the benefits of economic integration and defend an open world economy, even absent U.S. leadership. After all, Trump’s trade wars have visibly harmed U.S. firms and consumers, as well as caused friction with America’s allies. Future leaders in Washington and around the world will presumably learn from such fallout.

Finally, there is no reason to conclude that global governance must collapse in the absence of strong U.S. leadership. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney proposed at the recent Davos conference in Switzerland, so-called middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil and Canada itself, have the capacity to rescue the world’s most vital international organizations for the benefit of future generations, and to create new institutions as necessary.

Nations such as Canada, Japan, Australia and the members of the European Union obviously lack the overwhelming military power and economic clout of the United States. But they could choose instead to implement a more collective approach to global leadership.

No safe bets

There are obviously no guarantees that the post-Pax Americana era will be an unbridled success. There will be war and suffering in the future, just as there has been war and suffering under U.S. leadership. The idea of Pax Americana has always rung hollow to some people, including citizens of countries that have been attacked by the United States itself.

The question is whether the international system will become any more violent and unstable in the absence of U.S. leadership and military dominance than it has been during America’s long period of global dominance. It well might, but the international community shouldn’t resign itself to fatalism.

The United States has lost influence. The silver lining is that more countries – including America’s friends and allies – might rediscover their own capacity to shape world affairs.

The post-American era is therefore up for grabs.

Peter Harris is a Non-Resident Fellow with Defense Priorities.

– ref. The end of ‘Pax Americana’ and start of a ‘post-American’ era doesn’t necessarily mean the world will be less safe – https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-pax-americana-and-start-of-a-post-american-era-doesnt-necessarily-mean-the-world-will-be-less-safe-274354