The Nigérien Imbroglio as a Prelude to World War III: Scenarios and Dynamics
Bola A. Akinterinwa
Many are the pointers to the coup d’état in Niger Republic becoming a foundation for the making of another World War. Recall how World War II started in 1931 with the invasion of the Chinese province of Manchuria. The reported reason was the Japanese quest for raw materials needed to fuel growth of Japanese industries. Recall also that the origin of the official World War II battles has been dated to 1939 when the Sovieto-Japanese forces clashed in the Khalkin Gol River in Manchuria. The battle lasted for about four months and the Japanese suffered a serious defeat.
As noted by the Harry S. Truman Library regarding the invasion of Manchuria, ‘the United States, along with other countries, criticised Japanese aggression but shied away from any economic or military punishments. Relations between the U.S. and Japan worsened further when Japanese forces took aim at Indochina with the goal of capturing oil-rich areas of the East Indies.’ The United States was not happy with this development and therefore, not only embargoed scrap metal, oil and aviation fuel heading to Japan but also froze Japanese assets in the United States. More interestingly, the United States asked Japan to withdraw from their conquered areas of China and Indonesia.
Again, as explained by the Harry Truman National Archives, ‘Japan, sensing conflict was inevitable, began planning for an attack on Pearl Harbour by April 1941. The alliance systems of Japan, Germany and Italy were put into action by this time, but Russo-Japanese relations were cordial. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 brought the United States officially into World War II.’ The rest of the story is most unfortunate as the United States would respond with the Little Man of Hirochima and the Fat Man of Nagasaki in Japan. These are some of the critical dynamics of World War II.
The situation of international politics in Niger Republic as at today is not in any way different. The whole hullaballoo in Niger Republic is actually not the reported assault on democratic rules or what the ECOWAS has called an unconstitutional change of government or what is ordinarily referred to as a coup d’état against an elected government. The governments of France and the United States, in particular, and other Western allies, in general, prefer the return of the ousted President Mohammed Bazoum to power by all means than returning the country to constitutional order. This is simply because President Bazoum is currently the adjudged most reliable ally of the West in protecting Niger as a source of uranium to France and the United States. The situational reality of the management of the coup is such that the way Japanese could see that war was inevitable in 1941 is not different today in Niger. War has become inevitable despite the on-going diplomatic efforts.
Scenarios and Dynamics
First, there is the likelihood of Africa coming against the United States and its other allies in the foreseeable future. The scenario may take a revolutionary format in such a way that Africans will begin with protests against Westernisation in various ramifications. Pro-Western leaders will be difficult to find or to come to power through the ballot box. Neo-colon-ial influence has the potential to be brought to its lowest level. For instance, the message and implication of the coups d’état in the various affected Francophone is that the privileged ties that have characterised Franco-African relations are now being queried. Anti-French sentiments are also growing in Francophone Africa.
When a coup takes place, the first victim of such a coup is always the elected president who is often perceived to be serving as puppet to foreign governments. From this perspective, it can be rightly observed that countries under pro-French presidents are most likely to be the next to be ousted. This means that both the African Union and the ECOWAS should be prepared for greater challenges in the foreseeable future. The strategic interest of concern is how not to block the access of France and the United States in particular to uranium. The United States has invested billions of US dollars in the exploitation and development of uranium in Niger and are not in any way prepared to let their investments be in vain.. The ousted president has been a major protector of their investments. This is why the survival of the ousted president is more important than the rhetorical question of returning to er65*
The issue to note is that when the people of Niger complain about foreign exploitation of Niger’s raw materials or when Nigériens kicked against the admission of unwanted French troops sent out of Mali, they have generally been arrested by President Bazoum and incarcerated. This has always angered the people of Niger Republic. This partly explains the support for the coup and also partly why the coupists want to try the ousted president for high treason.
Secondly, the issue of how to take electoral democracy and sustainable development cannot but be another important dynamic. The Nigerian Political Science Association held a virtual seminar on ‘the Nigérien Crisis: Its Development, Interests, Implications, and Pathways to Resolving It’ on Thursday, 17th August, 2023 during which the question of democracy and development was raised for discussion. In the same vein, at the 153rd session of the ‘thruMYeyes with Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, on August 17, the matter of how to address democracy and development was again raised.
In other words, the intellectual challenge is the determination of how to prioritise: which should come first? Should democracy come before national development? Without any whiff of doubt, the two can always go pari passu. They can both constitute two sides of the same coin. In fact, development is nothing more than a socio-economic and a politico-cultural objective, while democracy is the environmental instrument for achieving development objectives. It should be recalled here that at the Sixteenth Franco-African Summit held on June 19-21, 1990 in La Baule in France, democratisation was made an official conditionality for the grant of development aid by Europe to Africa. In other words, military dictatorship was consciously outlawed. Most Western countries approved of the La Baule development aid conditionality.
The understanding of democracy as at today in Africa is changing. In fact, it is also being questioned. Should democracy be detrimental to development? Explained differently, is an unconstitutional change of government more important an issue than a controversial election or rigged election that brought an elected president to power? In Niger Republic, the unresolved question is whether it is the release of the ousted president that takes priority or the development issues for which the ousted president was accused, allegedly for flirting with foreigners to exploit the national resources to the detriment of the people’s interests.
For example, the Nigériens are openly aggrieved that their uranium is purchased at a very cheap rate but sold at the international market at a rate that is more than 700% of the initial cost of purchase. They complained about lack of electricity generation in Niger while the export of uranium from Niger Republic to France is used to provide electricity for the French without outage. As a result of this, animosity vis-à-vis France began to grow, and spreading gradually. Apparently because the ousted president has not been listening to public complaints, and probably because the Commander General of the Presidential Guards has not been in good terms with the ousted President on this very issue, the French and Americans have been compelled to support the president, at least, for being the reliable protector of their interests in Niger. Unfortunately, the people of Niger are not only in support of the coupists but also, with the coupists, are opposed to their former colonial master.
The dynamic of a World War III is therefore best explained by the fact of the non-preparedness of the United States and the French to allow the closure of their access to the Nigérien uranium, which is reputed to be one of the purest, if not the purest, in the world. If the new president of Niger is hostile to the French and Americans, it can still be pardonable. However, for the French and Americans to wait and see their influence reduced and replaced by Russia in Niger is perceived to be intolerable and unacceptable. Consequently, the imminent war in the making cannot but be between France and the United States, on the one hand, and Russians on the other hand.
Niger Republic is only conceived to be the required battle ground for the proxy war. Even though France and the United States have military bases in Niger Republic, their troops are most unlikely to be directly deployed to the theatre of war in Niger. As a result of this unlikelihood, they are compelled to pressurise the ECOWAS to do the battle on their behalf, but accepting to fund and provide other necessary logistical support. In this regard, Nigeria, in particular, is carrying the burden of the pressure for various reasons: it is the giant of the ECOWAS region. Nigeria is more solvent than all other members. Nigeria accounts for about one-third of the ECOWAS annual budget. Nigeria is also the military giant on which the French and the Americans largely count to help restore the constitutional order in Niger.
Thirdly, the ECOWAS region, and particularly Nigeria, has the potential to be destabilised beyond imagination. At the ECOWAS level, the regional organisation cannot but be seriously weakened if not completely dismantled. It should be recalled that it took a lot of efforts for the Communauté Economique de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (CEAO) (Economic Community of West Africa), comprising only the Francophone West African countries to accept the idea of one regional body. The CEAO was the rival of the ECOWAS which consists of Anglophones, Francophone and Lusophones unlike the CEAO.
The CEAO was established in April 1973 following the signing of the Abidjan Treaty. It was really meant to contain Nigeria’s influence in the region. The way Professor Daniel Bach of the University of Bordeaux in France put it is quite interesting: ‘almost simultaneously, the creation of the CEAO was an attempt by six francophone countries – the Ivory Coast, Senegal, Niger, upper Volta, Mali and Mauritania – with the active support of France, to counterbalance Nigerian influence within West Africa’ (vide The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 21, No.4, 1983, pp.605-623). The CEAO was later compelled to give way to the ECOWAS but the Anglophone-Francophone mésentente is yet to disappear. Unlike before when efforts were strenuously made to preserve the French identity with the express support of France, the situational reality of today is that France is no longer wanted in some countries. Besides, they are divided on the issue of coup in Niger.
The Implications for Nigeria
There are some indications that France’s Emmanuel Macron is planning air raid of Niger Republic to compel the coupists to accept to release President Mohammed Bazoum currently kept under house arrest in his palace. The relationship between President Emmanuel Macron and Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has grown to the level of an entente cordiale to the extent that France is doing whatever is possible to make PBAT commit the ECOWAS to a military intervention in Niger Republic.
Without doubt, there are proponents of military intervention in Niger who argued that coup making and military rule has become obsolete in political governance. They say that the ECOWAS should put an end to coup making once and for all. They also posit that unless the ECOWAS use military force to compel the coupists to return to constitutional order, the regional body may end up with disintegration. Put deductively, the ECOWAS cannot afford the luxury of eating its words again after the experiences in Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea (Conakry).
As good as these observations might be, it is precisely the act of military intervention that has the great potential to disintegrate the ECOWAS and not the inaction of the ECOWAS. First, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea Conakry have made it clear that any attack on the coupists in Niger is nothing more than a ‘declaration of war’ on them as well. In other words, the ECOWAS is already divided before the intended military invasion.
Secondly, any intended military invasion of Niger is also an attack on all the States supporting the coupists. Algeria and Russia are likely to be on the side of the coupists. The Wagner mercenaries are already on ground. This means that the intended military invasion of Niger may not be as strategically simple as it is being taken.
Thirdly, the coupists have reportedly said that they would kill the ousted president in the event of an ECOWAS military intervention. What will be the gain or essence of an intervention that will neutralise the life of President Mohammed Bazoum without certainty of restoration of democracy or constitutional order?
Fourthly, in the aftermath of an ECOWAS military intervention, will Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea Conakry, as well as Niger Republic still be considered Member States of the ECOWAS? It is most unlikely. Thus, it is not the act of military invasion that can ensure the integrity of and respect for the ECOWAS but by acting in unison in policy decision, intervening collectively and not divisively on the battle fields.
Most unfortunately, however, political stakeholders in Nigeria are generally opposed to military intervention. PBAT requested for the approval of the Senate to send Nigerian troops to Niger Republic but the Senate rejected the request. The Senators representing Nigeria’s seven northernmost States sharing international borders with the Republic of Niger have also vehemently opposed any military option to enforce the release of the ousted president and return to constitutional order.
In this regard, PBAT’s warning to the Nigérien military of non-acceptance of unconstitutional change of government cannot but be a thorny problem for PBAT as President of Nigeria and Chairman of the ECOWAS Authority, especially in light of the foregoing domestic opposition to the military invasion of Niger. Nigerians are asking PBAT to allow France and the United States address their problems in Niger rather than seeking to intervene in Niger Republic as a puppet.
Fifthly, ECOWAS military intervention in Niger Republic has the potential to deepen insecurity in Nigeria. The various governments in Nigeria have not succeeded in cutting the feathers of the Boko Haram since its inception more than ten years ago. The Muhammadu Buhari administration claimed to have technically defeated the Boko Haram on the battle field. Howevers, terroristic attacks by the Boko Haram have not abated but have been on the increase.
As a matter of fact and more often than not, there are Boko Haram agents in the government. This was first acknowledged publicly by the Goodluck Jonathan administration. Whenever it was made known that the Nigerian military would be going to confront the boko haramists, Nigerian troops have always been waylaid on the way and brutally killed. This problem of Boko Haram terrorists in government was not addressed under President Muhammadu Buhari. And true enough again PBAT has inherited the boko haramists in the Public Service, and probably also those in his government.
What is noteworthy here is that there can be no enmity between the terrorists in Nigeria and the terrorists in Niger Republic. They have shared values in terms of their insurgency and seeking change by use of force. As such, a military intervention in Niger Republic cannot but be an opportunity for the terrorists on both sides to unite and undermine the ECOWAS, as well as the foreign interventionists. Already, Boko Haram abhors westernisation. The ECOWAS that is perceived to be a puppet of the West, doing the bidding of Franco-American interest, cannot but be challenged by the terrorists who are in alliance with the Al-Qaeda on both sides.
One interesting implication is the use of military force to redress a coup d’état. A coup is the use of force to remove a supposedly-elected president. Because of the use of force in coup making, it is considered unacceptable and unconstitutional. But why is force not used to ensure that elections are not rigged and that electoral malpractices are prevented? What is wrong in sanctioning rigged or fraudulent elections by use of force?
Interrogatively put, will military intervention in Niger Republic put an end to coup making in the future? There is nothing to suggest that military invasion is an antidote to coup making. The main dynamic of coup making in Africa is bad governance, political unfairness, unnecessary ethnic bigotry, and leadership selfishness. Perhaps the most critical implication is the future of the principle of subsidiarity in the governance of Africa. The African Union adopted the international principle of subsidiarity by which questions that are better and conveniently addressed are left to the regional and sub-regional bodies to solve. Now, there cannot but be a problem in the foreseeable future as the ECOWAS has been fully seized with the coup imbroglio in Niger Republic. However, press reports have it that the African Union is opposed to the use of military intervention to resolve the Niger saga, while the ECOWAS is pushing for military intervention. Will the principle be redefined?
