Breaking News
COUP D’ÉTAT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND BAD CHOICES
ECOWAS has no option but to try to arrest the dangerous drift, argues Gbara Awanen
When mutinous Nigerien soldiers detained President Mohammed Bazoun on 26th July, 2023, claiming they could do a better job at providing security and development for the long suffering people of Niger Republic, it marked the latest example of democracy retrenchment across West Africa. From Guinea, Burkina Faso, Mali, and now Niger, we see democracy in retreat. The problem is, every successful coup emboldens some ambitious, power-hungry soldiers to make a grab for power by overthrowing constitutional authority.
Across the region, the fear of the contagion effect is real. Indeed, Abdourahamane Tchiani’s coup in Niger is actually a frightening manifestation of the contagion effect. Against this backdrop, ECOWAS has no option but to try to arrest the drift. Anything short of success in this delicate endeavour will only normalize violent take-over of power across the region.
Right from West Africa’s decades of independence from the 1960s, coups and counter coups have remained tragic features of West Africa’s political landscape. This is sad. Sad because we now know from experience that military rule neither delivers security nor development. If military rule was the ultimate solution to Africa’s crisis of development, Niger Republic would not be among the poorest countries of the world today because, like several countries across Africa, it has experienced multiple coups and counter coups. Across West Africa, the legacies of military rule are instability, impunity and poverty.
Of course, this is no apologia for poor governance that is driving a sense of hopelessness among citizens across the region. In the midst of massive poverty, governance failures such as egregious corruption, manipulation of ethnic and sectarian divides, nepotism, bad actors in the military masquerading as patriots will always find justifications to overthrow the constitutional order. But it is obvious that the military adventurers of today in places like Guinea, Conakry, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger Republic are poor students of history. A correct reading of history would warn that their forebears travelled this same tragic road and came to no good, either for themselves or their countries.
Because a coup in the neighbourhood is everybody’s problem, the putschists in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger must not be allowed to have the last say. The countries they have pulverised need help, which is precisely what ECOWAS is trying to do. Unfortunately, most Nigerians have chosen to conflate what are clearly ECOWAS initiatives as those of Nigeria’s. We must correct this false narrative. It must be understood that the sanctions, ultimatum and the threat of use of force against the junta in Niamey are strictly ECOWAS positions based on Treaty provisions. For example, ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance (2001) affirms zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government. This Protocol, in effect, outlaws military take-over of government across West Africa. Thus, from the point of view of international law (ECOWAS’s Treaty and Protocols) the regime of Abdourahamane Tchiani in Niamey is illegal
Following the coup, ECOWAS Heads of State and Government met in Abuja on July 30th and resolved to apply relevant provisions of its Treaty, including the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, to force compliance with its governance mechanisms. Compliance with this key mechanism means that the military junta in Niamey must restore constitutional government in the country by returning deposed President Mohammed Bazoum to power. So it is clear Nigeria is not waging war against Niger republic.
As a Treaty Member of ECOWAS, Nigeria is obligated to implement all ECOWAS resolutions. It is only by coincidence that President Tinubuis the current Chair of ECOWAS. If some other leader, say President George Weah of Liberia, were the Chair of ECOWAS in this moment, Nigeria will still have to implement ECOWAS resolutions on Niger. So this is not about Nigeria taking a unilateral action against Niger; it is all about Nigeria’s international obligations as a leader in ECOWAS and a responsible member of the international community. Anything less would hurt Nigeria’s international reputation and credibility.
In all of this, we must understand where President Tinubu is coming from. Whatever anyone will say about him, he has proven his democratic credentials since his running battles with military juntas in Nigeria in the 1990s. Given Nigeria’s own sad history of military usurpation of constitutional authority, the President is right to make democracy promotion a cornerstone of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Which is why it is false and wicked to suggest that Nigeria is doing the bidding of foreign powers. Anyone peddling this fake narrative should go look at the map of West Africa to understand the potential geopolitical and security implications of instability in Niger Republic. What happens in Niger does not stay there. The same with Nigeria. The spill over of crisis is regional in scope. Therefore, for Nigeria, peace in Niger is simply a case of enlightened self-interest.
The mother of all misinformation is that Nigeria is levying war against Niger republic. This is false. Also false is the suggestion that Nigeria opted for military option in place of diplomacy. The ECOWAS resolution on the situation in Niger is clear: the regional organization prioritised diplomatic, political and economic pressure to force the coupists in Niamey to change course. The point was made that force could be used, but only when all options have failed. Sanctions and threats of the use of force are legitimate tools of foreign policy. This is normal in diplomacy; indeed, diplomacy not backed up by force or threat of use of force, especially in the kind of situation in Niger at the moment, can be just hot air – a futile exercise.
In diplomacy, you leverage all tools of power, including sanctions, to force a course correction by bad actors, which is what the coupists in Niamey are. The tragedy is that it appears the junta in Niamey is determined to force the hands of the international community by rebuffing ECOWAS, AU and UN negotiators. Instead, the junta appears to have chosen to encourage war-mongering by renegade regimes in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea Conakry, all currently under the strangleholds of coupists. This kind of posturing only go to reinforce ECOWAS principled position to protect democracy in West Africa, not least because, as empirical studies have demonstrated, democracies do not fight one another.
The countries banding together to try to legitimize their illegal seizures of power know too well that they are outliers living on borrowed time. The implausibility of their cause is also evident in some recent happenings in these countries, including encouraging the burning of French Flags, waving Russian Flags and inviting the Wagner Mercenary Group to provide the protection that their own military have failed miserably to do over many years. All of this would be ridiculous, if it was not tragic: Replacing France with Russia? Replacing an old colonizer with a brand new one, and one that is more exploitative and more repressive? Who among the coupists in Niamey or the miserable masses waving Russian flags on the streets of Niamey would choose to live in Moscow over Paris or Marseille? When you live far away, it is very romantic to see Russia as a benevolent power. Go ask countries of the former Soviet Union what their experiences were under Russian colonialism. Go ask the Belarusians, the Georgians and the Moldovans how it feels to be under Russian imperialism
The only difference between Russia and the West is that Russia did not have an opportunity to colonize Africa. Now, the Nigeriens, Malians and others want to submit themselves to be colonized by Russia in the 21st century. It is clearly self-serving for coupists in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso to position their countries as pawns in geopolitical struggles between the West, Russia, and China. None of these countries are benevolent powers.
In the same vein, the Wagner mercenaries are not a missionary Group; for them, it is business, ruthless business. The Wagner mercenaries kill for money, but the bigger price they always extract is license to exploit niche mineral resources in poor countries – the same thing the Nigeriens, Malians and others are accusing France of doing. If these countries so much detest France as to completely delink from their old master, can they not now simply live free, without replacing one oppressor with another? If the putschists in Bamako, Ouagadougou, Conakry, and Niamey are the patriots they claim to be, surely they can make better choices for their countries?
Awanen writes from Abuja
