Russia as Nigeria’s Neighbour by Geo-political Propinquity: The Challenge of the ASS

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

Until the making of the Alliance of Sahel States (ASS), France has been recognised as another neighbour of Nigeria by geo-political propinquity. Republic of Benin, Republic of Niger, Republic of Chad, and Republic of Cameroon are generally considered as Nigeria’s immediate neighbours by geographical territorial contiguity. Professor Rafiu Ayo Akindele, former Acting Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), and Professor Bola A. Akinterinwa have argued that France is also a territorial neighbour of Nigeria by geo-political propinquity, meaning that France and Nigeria have several shared values in global politics. The shared values necessarily bring them closer together beyond the rule of territorial contiguity. They posited that the commonality of interests is such that it influences the focus of policy-making in the four contiguous neighbours of Nigeria.

For instance, France’s policy attitude towards Nigeria at the politico-strategic level is to prevent Nigeria from influencing the Francophone neighbours against French interests in Francophone Africa, particularly in Nigeria’s immediate neighbourhood which is Francophone. In the same vein, Nigeria’s attitudinal disposition towards France is to prevent France from undermining her interests in her sphere of influence. This raises the extent of validity of ‘there are no permanent friends or enemies but permanent interests,’ which is not applicable to Franco-Nigerian relations in West Africa. Put differently, the immediate territorial neighbours of Nigeria are Francophone and will remain permanently so until there is fundamental change of circumstance. If we admit that Nigeria cannot change her Francophone neighbours where France has privileged influence, and if admittedly Nigeria will continue to have qualms with French presence in the ECOWAS region, this means that both countries cannot but remain friendly enemies. By implication, there can be permanent enemies and friends. It is the permanency of an interest that actually determines whether there will be permanent friends or enemies. 

Issues in Russia as Nigeria’s Neighbour  

It is against the foregoing background that we consider Nigeria’s interests, permanent or otherwise, within the framework of the Alliance des États du Sahel (AES or ASS). Many are the issues raised since the withdrawal of the three Member States of the ASS (Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger) from the ECOWAS. For instance, how do we understand the roles of the people in coup-making? In Mali and Niger, in particular, the people gave active support to the military junta who, in the eyes of the ECOWAS, all came to power by unconstitutional means? Should people-supported coups be considered unconstitutional in the light of the people’s protest against a legitimate government, accused of bad governance and institutional corruption?

Explained differently, in Kenya, President Williams Ruto is not only seen by Kenyans as anti-people by coming out with a ‘Financial Bill Kenya 2024’ which seeks to tax the daily needs of the people (sanitary pads, bread, etc.) but also as a puppet of the United States. Consequently, the people are insisting that President Ruto should either resign or be forced out. Should or shouldn’t the people be considered as coupists? If the people are considered as coupists, what about the source or sources of coup? Should an elected president who has bastardised democracy be left alone under the pretext that people should wait to vote him out? If the people are to wait and their votes would not count at the end of voting, what is the option left to capitalise on?

In this regard, how does the African Union or the ECOWAS interpret the role of the people? Should the ECOWAS act against the wishes of the people? Whose interests are being protected if the people are protesting against democracy or against a democratically-elected president who is seen as working against the interest of the nation by being a puppet? And perhaps most disturbingly, has the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) administration contemplated on the possibility of another mass protest in the mania of the 2020 #End SARS in light of the groaning complaints of the people? What will PBAT do in the event of a popular revolt? The question is raised because one other reason for the revolt in Kenya, apart from taxation, is the issue of unending borrowing. The people are embittered, especially that the borrowing is believed to be fraught with corruption. PBAT must learn lessons from elsewhere as Nigeria and Kenya share common situational reality in terms of foreign borrowings. PBAT must begin to be all ears first, as leader of Nigeria, before being the primus inter pares at the level of the ECOWAS. 

True enough, PBAT was elected but the people are complaining about some of his policies that are making life difficult for survival in Nigeria in the same way Burkinabe, Malians and Nigeriens complained to no avail. Many Nigerians are leaving Nigeria to seek greener pastures in Russia, and particularly going there to join the Russian war effort on Ukraine. Will Russia’s fast growing influence in Sahel not encourage more Nigerians to go to Russia or to join the Wagner Group in West Africa? If the people of Nigeria rise up to demand PBAT’s resignation, how will the people’s demand for resignation be interpreted? Treasonable felony? Coup d’état? Attempt at unconstitutional change of government? 

As PBAT is also the Chairman of ECOWAS authority, has it not become a desideratum for the ECOWAS to reflect further on how to reconcile the objectives of constitutional changes of government and the survivalist interests of the people? It makes little sense promoting democracy to the detriment of the interest and survival of the people. 

Additionally, should Nigeria consider Russia as an alternative to France? Can Russia be a new regional influential and another neighbour of Nigeria by geo-political propinquity, thanks to the ASS that has opened its doors widely to Russia? Can Nigeria manage any Russo-American or Franco-Russian misunderstanding in the West Africa or ECOWAS region? ECOWAS, as a regional body is generally believed not to have the military capacity to unseat the military junta for various reasons, especially because of the strong political will of the peoples in the ASS that are supporting the junta. All these questions cannot but compel PBAT to place greater emphasis on integration of people, on the Community citizens, rather than on integration of Heads of States and of Government. 

It should not be quickly forgotten that, it was thanks to Nigeria’s initiative, and in collaboration with the Republic of Togo that the ECOWAS was established in 1975, in Lagos, Nigeria. And most unfortunately too, it is under a Nigerian president and ECOWAS under the chairmanship of a Nigerian president, PBAT, that threats of use of force pointing to disintegration of the ECOWAS are deepening. As it is today, the fear of ECOWAS threats is what is serving as a catalyst in the efforts at confederation and federation of the ASS. In other words, the ASS appears to have become a fait accompli, implying that the likelihood of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger accepting to withdraw their notices of non-membership is remote. 

It cannot be in the interest of Russia to have the ASS countries return to the ECOWAS where Russian influence has the potential to be challenged. West Africa is a very good region for Russia to challenge its arch competitor and to engage in a proxy war with the NATO allies. The implication is that the ECOWAS, believed to be the most advanced in terms of regional integration efforts, cannot but be the first to have a sub-region as provided for under Article 1(e) of the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community.

It is in the interest of PBAT, and particularly PBAT’s Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs to address the main complaints raised by the ASS countries against the ECOWAS and then respond to them. The approach should not be to emphasise their return to the ECOWAS. The ASS, as noted earlier, is a fait accompli. ASS confederation is already given and cannot be easily negotiated away bearing in mind the financial expenses incurred. The peoples of the three countries now see themselves differently as self-liberated. Consequently, the challenge for PBAT is how to coordinate the regional and sub-regional bodies within the framework of competing foreign interests. 

France is most likely to make use of the yet-to-become hostile countries to sustain her influence in West Africa. Doing this also has the potential to create divided interests amongst Francophone Africa. Even if the French are purporting to have other sources of uranium, they must acknowledge or tell the whole world how much they are buying it from Niger compared to other countries, like Canada. It is on record that France normally buys one kilogram of uranium at a rate of €0.80 euro from Niger but paid €200 per kilogram for the same quantity from Canada in 2023.

As noted by Faizan Ali, in his “Niger-France uranium: African country increases uranium price to €200/kg” posted by samaa.tv on September 10, 2023, Niger is rated by the World Nuclear Association as the world’s seventh biggest producer of uranium and Niger was the second largest supplier of natural uranium to the European Union in 2022. And perhaps more interestingly, Faizan Ali has it that ‘France, historically Niger’s primary uranium buyer, bought uranium from Niger at the rate of €0.80 per kilogram. Ironically, on the other hand, France bought similar uranium from Canada at a price of €200/kg. Many observers see this as a broad daylight robbery.

Nigeria and the ASS Challenge 

The first challenge is this notion of broad daylight robbery. The robbery is synonymous with foreign exploitation of the ASS countries against which the people are protesting. It is useful to note that Nigeria has been in the forefront in the campaigns against the exploitation of Africa’s mineral resources exclusively for the development of Europe. This was a major thrust of Nigeria’s foreign policy under General Yakubu Gowon. Dr Okoi Arikpo was then the Commissioner for External Affairs. He made it clear that Nigeria would never accept such an exploitation. It was a policy that was not taken lightly by the developed countries. The policy was like Dr. Jaja Wachukwu’s policy of ‘No Compromise with Apartheid,’ in 1963.

When Dr Arikpo raised the issue of exploitation of Africa’s resources to the detriment of African people, one answer given by France was that she was in Africa on the kind invitation of countries that are similarly sovereign like Nigeria. France was referring to Francophone African countries. This same answer was also the template often given by France when Nigeria was opposing foreign military bases and interventions in Africa. In this regard, can Nigeria, as a sovereign state prevent another sovereign state from advancing its own national interest? In other words, if other sovereign states accept to be exploited or do not see it as exploitation, why should Nigeria become another supra-national policeman? If Nigeria has to be the policeman of Africa, there is nothing wrong with it but it must be properly acknowledged as a special challenge. This isa major challenge for the PBAT government.

Article 4(2) of the ECOWAS Treaty is another question. It stipulates that ‘the institutions of the Community shall perform the functions and act within the limits of the powers conferred upon them by or under this Treaty and by Protocols thereto.’ The institutions of the ECOWAS are articulated under Article 4(1) as follows: the Authority, Council of Ministers, Defence Council, Executive Secretariat, Tribunal of the Community, and the Technical and Specialised Commissions.

In this regard, the ASS countries are saying that there is no clear provision in the ECOWAS Treaty, even under Article 4 that the ECOWAS is empowered to declare the use of force against any Member State. They therefore see the ECOWAS threats of use of force against Niger as an exaggeration. And true enough, even in the Protocol A/SP.3/5/81 Relating to Mutual Assistance on Defence,  Article 2 under objectives, says ‘Member States declare and accept that any armed threat or aggression directed against any Member shall constitute a threat or aggression against the entire Community.’ 

The intendment of this article is about threats from a third country and not about intra- or inter-member threats. This is why Article 3 of the Treaty has it that ‘Member States resolve to give mutual aid and assistance for defence against any armed threat to aggression.’ In other words, not even the Authority of Heads of State and of Governments is empowered to declare war on a Member State. What Article 4(b) says is that ‘in case of internal armed conflict within any Member State engineered and supported actively from outside likely to endanger the security and peace in the entire community. In this case the Authority shall appreciate and decide on this situation in full collaboration with the Authority of the Member State or States concerned. From the foregoing, the concerns of the Treaty are about external threats and possible aggression from non-Member States.

In the same vein, the ASS countries are arguing that the ECOWAS Treaty does not provide for closure of borders. They do not border much about suspension of their membership. They see this as consistent with the treaty. They are particularly embittered about closure of borders, particularly bearing in mind that Niger is a landlocked country. The closure of borders is seen as a deliberate attempt to punish the people and not even the military junta. This is why, for instance, the ASS has decided to now use their own resources to ensure their own security without any dependency on anyone. It is interesting to note that Mali claimed to have drawn the attention of the UN Security Council to a Malian case but no attention was given by anyone. This simply means that Mali and others have been pushed to the wall and have been compelled to search for other means of survival as sovereign nations.

In terms of challenges for the PBAT, the ASS members are accusing the ECOWAS of violating the ECOWAS Treaty and its Protocols by acting on the basis of powers that are not delegated to the Authority. As Chairman of the regional body, Nigeria as the most powerful regional influential in the ECOWAS region, Nigeria must ensure that the ECOWAS Treaty is not violated whatever is the circumstance. Nigeria must not allow the organisation to be seen as a tool to be used to sustain the policies of divide and rule. In the eyes of the ASS, ECOWAS has lost its raison d’être. This is another major challenge for PBAT ECOWAS had 16 original members. Mauritania disengaged in December 2000 but sought an associate membership in 2017. This is to suggest that the ECOWAS still has its essence to have warranted Mauritania to seek associate membership.

With the withdrawal of Mali Burkina Faso, and, Niger, it means that, linguistically speaking, it is the Francophone countries that are always protesting. With the declared intention of the Senegalese considering deep collaboration with the ASS, being one of the Sahel States, can it not be expected that, it is sooner or later for Senegal to begin to distance itself from the ECOWAS. And if we are to put all these considerations in the context of re-alliances, will France ever allow peace in the ASS? Will the US-led NATO allies allow an African order to be established?

So far, the ASS is placing priority on five main areas: education, youth employment, agriculture, rural development, food security, and climate change. The explanation of the Malian Foreign Minister, Abdoulaye Diop, in regard to these priorities is apt. First, there is no seriousness of purpose in conceding one’s security to another country. Second, acquiring massive weapons should not be mutual annihilation. The weapons should be for the enemies and the enemies cannot but be those people who bombed Libya. In the eyes of Diop, those who bombed Libya cannot be a solution to the problems of the ASS. Those who bombed are the United States and its allies. But is Russia going to be anyway better than the United States?

Time will surely tell whether Russia is a better option and whether the ASS can survive the untold war. The ASS is challenged by three types of wars: the jihadist insurrection, the post-colonisation war, and crises of legitimacy. As regards jihadist terror, no country in the world has been able to permanently contain it at the national level. Even collaborative efforts have not succeeded. When the United States was able to destabilise them in Syria, the jihadists simply relocated to the Sahel. Reports have also suggested that they have succeeded in crossing over to Nigeria while Nigeria is still fighting the Boko Haram unsuccessfully. If the returnee jihadists come to Nigeria, what will the new scenario look like? What the ASS appears to be doing is noteworthy and commendable. The ASS has embarked on economic transformation with particular emphasis on agriculture; involving the youth and addressing their problems; and placing Africa in its appropriate place in global politics.

Another issue raised by the ASS is France’s claim of non-recognition of the military junta in Niger. The explanation of France is that President Mohammed Bazoum did not resign his appointment as President unlike what obtained in Mali. If the problem if that of non-resignation, how do we explain the appointment of the son of Idris Déby when he died in the war front? Why did France not allow the President of the National Assembly to take over power and then organise elections as required by the Chadian Constitution?