The military takeover of government in Niger in the past one week has re-ignited the smouldering fire of foreign relations and is now an acid test for Nigeria’s foreign relations in the present circumstances. Over the past decade, Nigeria has become more insular than ever. A move made by the immediate past president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, to pull the country out of membership of many international organisations further buttresses that assertion. At the continental and regional levels, much of Nigeria’s involvement has been merely ceremonial.
It consists more of speechmaking, signing documents and conference attendance than action. Nigerian mainstream media too seems to have gone somnolent, failing to ask critical questions or holding the feet of the government officials to the fire on foreign relations. It may be too early to conclude that the Niger coup is a rude awakening that has finally opened the eyes of current leaders in Nigeria to the crisis in the West African subregion.
The decline of most public institutions began in the days of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, the self-acclaimed military president who practically castrated many of them even while creating many new variants that disappeared after his tenure in office. The Nigerian Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) in Kuru, Jos, was meant to be a think-tank and advisory organ for the federal government on matters of local, regional and global relevance. While NIPSS still exists in name, it is now moribund in essence.
Meanwhile, successive presidents hardly saw the need for — or relevance of — that institute in their strategic decision making. So, they routinely resort to impulses, intuitions and gut-feelings in decision making many of which turn out to be off the mark or are simply of little or no long-term values. In the process, Nigeria gradually lost the role model status at the regional and continental levels.
It is not surprising therefore — though it is appalling — that the harsh reaction of ECOWAS on the coup d’état in Niger was spearheaded by the chairman of the ECOWAS, led by Nigeria. Such a decision has been characterised by a number of policy, political and diplomatic mis-steps which could harm Nigeria in diverse ways. First, any regional policy decision spearheaded or ratified by Nigeria should begin with a robust consideration of the impacts on Nigerians living in such countries and should be based on well-founded institutional memory. It has to draw from institutions from the public, private and social sectors. This is to avoid doing what would lead to costs with no real benefit.
David Anyaele, a Nigerian businessman living in Sierra Leone during Nigeria-led ECOMOG intervention is lucky to be alive today. He is a survivor of the atrocities meted out to Nigerians in Sierra Leone in retaliation for their perceived support for the country’s government against the rebels. David, who was a businessman in Freetown, became a double amputee as a result of the brutal treatment he received in Sierra Leone then. Many other Nigerians did not live to tell their own stories as they were killed. Thankfully, today, David had a positive attitude to live after the experience and turned around his misfortune in Sierra Leone, choosing rather to help people with disabilities in Nigeria. Some others would have died in misery.
The wrong assumptions by political office holders in Nigeria is putting many citizens living in other countries of Africa in the harm’s way. The memory about of Nigerians living in South Africa who had to be hurriedly evacuated few years ago is still fresh. Many had earlier moved to South Africa in search of work, better tertiary education and business opportunities because of the deteriorating state of affairs in Nigeria. But South African politicians, particularly under President Jacob Zuma, revved up xenophobic attacks on Nigerians. His successor, Cyril Ramaphosa couldn’t do better, appearing helpless in the expected area of protection for Nigerian citizens under his watch.
On this score, one part of the theory put forward by the erudite former foreign affairs minister, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, seems relevant. His view about South Africa working through the African Union (AU) to make a contradictory statement — to the ECOWAS statement — on the ultimatum given to Niger’s coup leaders to reverse their actions and restore deposed Mohamed Bazoum could be put in perspective when considering the haste and shallowness of threat issued. It must have created some acrimonious feelings against Nigeria whose president attempted to seize the occasion of the Niger coup to worm his way into the hearts of the Western allies, particularly the US in an attempt to validate his presidency in international reckonings with heightened democratic rhetorics.
That move on ultimatum may have backfired seriously beyond any initial hope or optimism as the Nigeriens themselves have risen up to celebrate the success of the coup. A neighbour is not expected to wail louder than the bereaved. Nigeria’s hasty move to talk of mobilising military forces to remove the Niger coup leaders has therefore proved wrongheaded, ill-advised and poorly thought-out. It ran contrary to the wise counsel of the Bible to national leaders in Proverbs 20:18 that “every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.” How ECOWAS hopes to carry out the military invasion remains speculative as only Benin Republic and Nigeria are the two ECOWAS countries sympathetic to the idea of such an action.
Niger shares borders with Chad, Libya, Algeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin Republic and Nigeria. But the military leaders in Mali and Burkina Faso have issued a joint statement in defiance and daring ECOWAS. They have found the sympathy of Guinea Conakry and Chad’s military leader has paid the Niger’s coup leaders a visit which does not suggest a resistance to the coup anyway. In essence, ECOWAS may find itself in a battle on many fronts. Already, some Nigeriens are hopeful that the new leaders will expel the French military forces, which some citizens have described as forces of occupation. Foreign intervention that ignores the reactions of the citizens of Niger will be misguided.
The fact that Nigeria officially overtook South Africa in 2014 as the largest economy in Africa may have set off an economic cold war of which Nigeria has been too presumptuous to recognise and be wary of. However, one angle considered by Prof. Akinyemi on the South African involvement with the AU to undercut the ECOWAS and Nigeria seems more like a conspiracy theory — that is on his battle for survival politically as has surmounted it by the “art of the possible.” Whatever accusation against Cyril Ramaphosa on the phala phala farm money coverup scandal is beside the point in this case. What is more important for us here is the naivety of the person in charge of the affairs of Nigeria whose hasty, brash and sabre-rattling actions and utterances can inflame passion and cause war between Niger and Nigeria and put many Nigerian citizens in Niger — especially those in border communities in danger.
The tendencies of African civilian leaders to misuse official position, defy rules and disobey laws while extolling democracy is a major cause of political and economic crises in the continent. They are largely corrupt and indulge in wasteful spending even when their people are poor. They waste much on bureaucracy and official retinue of staff and appointees and turn around to ask for foreign aid. The donors ‘form’ helplessness, dishing out the handouts annually in their overseas development aid budgets, while extracting much more from the countries’ natural resources. Could it be true therefore, or is it simply a conspiracy theory that foreign interests use half measures in dealing with insecurity in Africa and putting massive positive spin on their activities while feathering their own nests there?
With circumstantial and anecdotal evidences, it could be inferred that the West uses double standard in their dealings with African countries, particularly the ECOWAS that is populated with leaders who hide behind democratic rhetorics to confuse their people. The real meaning of Bazoum was a Western ally could very well mean he allowed the West to fulfill their own strategic interests in Niger. For instance, French still wants to dictate terms to its former colonies — a big mistake — that the Nigeriens want to end quickly. Referring to the French government and its regional influence in West Africa, Alex Vines, Director of Africa Programme in Chatham House, said: “The problem of France’s policy in the Sahel was that it was slightly neo-colonial, telling Africans what they should be doing, rather than listening to Africans.” That is also applicable to Niger.
Piqued by such a disposition, Mali — under Colonel Assimi Goita — has ordered an end to Operation Barkhane and a pull out of the French troops, a process that now near completion. In the circumstance of the Niger coup, the French foreign troops in Niger will have to leave too, after the toppling of Bazoum’s government. All these are happening while the inability — or lack of political will — of ECOWAS to respond effectively to sub-regional security challenges is self-evident. With the rate at which security situation in West Africa is deteriorating, it is logical to ask whether member states are really committed to a regional approach to counter-terrorism.
Over three years after adopting an action plan to ‘eradicate’ terrorism in ECOWAS, and despite expressions of support by member states, the sub-region has made little progress. Yet, the security challenges facing the regional body continue to develop. Before the coming of terrorism, ECOWAS countries had relied on the regional military monitoring group (ECOMOG) for peace keeping in conventional wars. This was a form of political interventions within specific territorial boundaries which succeeded in temporarily stopping the bloodshed and ethnic killing in those cases. Well organised and properly trained and equipped, it could also very well deal with non-conventional war of terrorism. However, ECOMOG was later accused of atrocities and egregious crimes of human rights abuse in Liberia and Sierra Leone over 30 years ago, to which there was no accountability even after formal peacekeeping role ended.
The same regional body that could no longer provide trained men and military hardware to combat the terror groups is now making attempts to remove coup leaders in Niger. It even sounds absurd that Nigeria where the military was unable to conquer Sambisa forest or terror cells in the northeast and northwest will now be sent to dislodge the military in the saddle in Niger. On a wider regional level, that the same set of countries that could not sustain an ECOMOG alliance would now think of removing coup plotters in one country is a joke taken too far. Their political leaders who cannot sustain or maintain a viable regional security architecture live flamboyant livestyles in office, using public funds while depending on Western, notably France and the US for financial and technical support,
An alliance, known as the G5 Sahel Joint Force or G5S (French: G5 du Sahel), was formed on February 16, 2014 as an institutional framework for coordination of regional cooperation in development policies and security matters in West Africa in 2017, although one of them technically and politically belongs to Central Africa. It was to fight terrorism and the trafficking of drugs and people in its member countries in the region, notably Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. But it has suffered serious setbacks.
According to the International Centre for Counter-terrorism (ICCT), the security landscape has taken a new turn across the Sahel. “During the first six months of 2022, in an area already ravaged by numerous interconnected armed conflicts and jihadist insurgencies, figures show a dramatic increase of violent attacks. The epicentre of this crisis is the tri-border region between Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger.” It is now spilling over towards the Gulf of Guinea, particularly in Togo, Benin and Ivory Coast. Civilian populations in particular are paying the price for the growing violence, with internally displaced persons reaching into the millions in the Western Sahel.
The inability of ECOWAS to respond effectively to sub-regional security challenges is therefore worrisome. Beyond becoming an exclusive club of leaders who are only concerned with their individual self-preservation, the rate at which security situation in West Africa is deteriorating makes it logical to ask whether member states are really committed to a regional approach to counter-terrorism. Nearly three years after adopting an action plan to ‘eradicate’ terrorism in ECOWAS, and despite expressions of support by member states, the sub-region has made little progress. Yet, the security challenges facing the regional body continue to develop.
Those who want to use a brute force to remove the successful coup plotters in Niger and thus score cheap political points have missed the mark. They seem determined to pull their countries down with their mediocre approach that could — in the end — turn out to be an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
Dr. Oyeleye is a public analyst and a commentator
