NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: In the main body of this article, I will reproduce the official response of Nigeria to baseless allegations made by General Abdourahamane Tchiani who leads the military junta of Niger Republic ever since the coup d'état of 26 July 2023.
No matter how much Nigeria refutes Niger's allegations, this will not change much in the eyes of the populations of these countries who want to leave ECOWAS. In the space of 2 years, Nigeria has gone from being a model country in these countries to an imperialist country. The reasoning in these countries is sometimes as follows:
No ECOWAS member country will go and fight in these countries without Nigeria because it has more weight than the others, and if Nigeria decided to go and fight, the others would follow.
This reasoning may seem far-fetched but it works for the people.
The same kind of reasoning applies to ECOWAS:
When the terrorists attacked our countries with your democratically elected presidents, you did nothing, but when our soldiers took power to protect us from the terrorists, you began to take an interest in our countries, to the point of wanting to reinstall your comrades.
When our soldiers took power, you imposed sanctions on us and that prevented us from fighting the terrorists effectively. So ECOWAS and the terrorists are long-distance buddies with the blessing of the eternal imperialists: France and the USA.
-You talk to us about democracy but when one of your cronies changes the constitution of his country to stay in power you say nothing...
Here is some of the reasoning that goes on in these countries, especially at grassroots level.
This reasoning may seem absurd, but it is simple, effective and has a certain honesty about it, and I don't see how ECOWAS can get away with it.
Generally speaking, I think that ECOWAS has failed these countries a little bit by lumping them all together without taking into account the mentalities of the populations of each country, or their leaders. It tends to forget that there is a certain interdependence between the actions, the rhetoric of the military in power and the expectations of the people with regard to them.
Take the example of Burkina Faso, which I know a little well. If by chance the military were to organise elections at the moment, the president would be overthrown within 6 months to 1 year, especially if terrorism is still present. So if you talk about elections, they tell you that elections are for << those who have food to eat, those who have land to cultivate >>. The military in power even rely on this argument to do nothing, because they themselves are not safe from a coup d'état, especially if the population begins to understand that they are not as effective as they claim.
I don't know how things work in other countries such as Niger or Mali, but with such a view of things, ECOWAS can do nothing.
What's more, it has just given these countries another reason by extending their withdrawal by 6 months, which seems a bit desperate. Whatever happens in these countries during this period, they will hold ECOWAS responsible.This is perhaps the background to the allegations made by the President of Niger.He has found an opportunity to vent internal stress on Nigeria.The allegations could have been made about ECOWAS, but what better place than Nigeria or Côte d'Ivoire, depending on whether you are in Burkina Faso or Niger.
I disagree with everything you said, except the part about ECOWAS desperately trying to keep those three landlocked countries as member-states. I believe that ECOWAS should allow Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso to go away and do their thing. However, Niger Republic is a core national security interest of Nigeria, and therefore attempts would be made to bring Niger back into the fold. However, this would proceed by peaceful means.
-
I believe that ECOWAS is correct in its principle of rejecting the military coup d'états because unconstitutional take-overs of governments in Africa has been destabilizing and has led to many civil wars.
-
Nigeria's civil war (1967-1970) was partly based on the political instability resulting from two separate coups on January 1966 and July 1966. Liberian Civil Wars (1989-1997 and 1999-2003 ) has its roots in the bloody coup d'état of 1980, which ended 123 years of relative political stability in the Liberian republic. The horrific Sierra Leonian Civil War (1991-2002) is actually a spill-over conflict from neighbouring Liberia as Sierra Leonian citizens who fought in the First Liberian Civil War (1989-1997) simply returned home to foment trouble.
-
The Ethiopian Empire was already grappling with insurgency in its Eritrean region when the Marxist-Leninist coup happened in 1974. The political upheaval triggered a crippling civil war (1975-1991) within Ethiopia proper between the fledgling Marxist-Leninist military regime and renegade Trotskyite insurgents.
-
The problem of terrorism in the Sahel Belt has its roots in the Algerian Civil War (1992-2002) which was triggered by the 1992 military coup d'état that annulled the results of parliamentary elections that a major Islamic political party had won.
-
Many of the Algerian jihadists defeated in the civil war simply moved to Northern Mali to foment jihadi terrorism in the Sahel. The destruction of Libya's statehood by USA, France and UK merely turbocharged the pre-existing Sahelian terrorist problem as many Libyan jihadists passed their NATO-issued weapons to their jihadist brethren operating in Mali, Nigeria, Chad, etc. Boko Haram terrorism, which was being successfully handled by the Nigerian Police, suddenly transmogrified into a serious low level insurgency that led to the Nigerian military having to get involved as the newly acquired firepower of the terrorists became too much for the police to handle.
-
Apart from ECOWAS, all other pan-African bodies-- such as AU and SADC--do not recognize coup-installed regimes because of their inherent distabilizing nature and penchant for leading to civil wars.
-
Idi Amin's military coup of January 1971 was celebrated by thousands of Ugandans. Hundreds of them filled a football stadium in Kampala where they toasted to General Idi Amin. Within five years, the country was in turmoil with mass killing of political opponents often denounced as "pro-imperialist" (which is codeword for anybody disliked by the regime). In the end, Idi Amin seized Tanzanian land, which triggered the Tanzania-Uganda War (1978-1979).
-
ECOWAS is not the only pro-interventionist organization on African soil. The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) led by Republic of South Africa have forcibly intervened twice in the small Kingdom of Lesotho to scuttle actual or attempted military coups in 1998 and 2014.
-
You can call Nigeria all the abusive names you like, but ECOWAS will never recognize illegitimate regimes that came to power by unconstitutional coups. African Union will also not recognize them either.
-
I wish Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger good luck in their future endeavours. But if they wish to remain in ECOWAS, they must follow all the laid-down rules. Again, Niger Republic is a little different because of historic cultural ties to Nigeria, which means that the Nigerian government will always be seeking ways of reproachment (even if it wont officially recognize the military regime in charge).
ECOWAS doesn't have a monopoly on intervention,there are other sub-continental organisations that do it as you said,but the regional history and the international context seem different.if we went back 10 years perhaps all intervention by ECOWAS or any other regional actor in these countries would be applauded.
I agree with the background you've given and the conclusions you've drawn from it.Niger is strategic for Nigeria from what I've been able to understand, but is the current Niger a threat to Nigeria? And is it necessary to reinstall a deposed president by force of arms? And that won't cause more harm than good, especially as these populations are somewhat divided on the issue.The last two questions apply to ECOWAS.These are questions we can ask ourselves.
History shows that sanctions and threats tend to radicalise the powers that be and it is the people who generally pay the highest price.
Take the history of the countries you mentioned, even in their dreams neither the Nigerians nor the Ugandans and others will support any coup d'état by their own military. These people have the experience and they know it's not worth it.It's a bit cynical to tell them this, but if the people of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso can't learn from what happened in Nigeria, Uganda and Ethiopia, then let the painful experience be imposed on them so that they learn the hard way.I tend to think that countries that have suffered shocks due to coups d'état and the internal wars that followed have made them countries ripe for democracy or are currently democracies, especially if there has been little outside interference.
I think it's easier for Nigeria to develop better bilateral relations with Niger than to go under the cover of ECOWAS.
The economic prospects of these countries are not bright and I doubt that they will pull through in the meantime. However, the leaders of these countries are on a path of no return, because any step backwards would be seen as a personal failure. The politics of statesmen are often more subjective than objective.
The tragedy of all this is that it is the people who remain the victims.
No matter how much Nigeria refutes Niger's allegations, this will not change much in the eyes of the populations of these countries who want to leave ECOWAS. In the space of 2 years, Nigeria has gone from being a model country in these countries to an imperialist country. The reasoning in these countries is sometimes as follows:
No ECOWAS member country will go and fight in these countries without Nigeria because it has more weight than the others, and if Nigeria decided to go and fight, the others would follow.
This reasoning may seem far-fetched but it works for the people.
The same kind of reasoning applies to ECOWAS:
When the terrorists attacked our countries with your democratically elected presidents, you did nothing, but when our soldiers took power to protect us from the terrorists, you began to take an interest in our countries, to the point of wanting to reinstall your comrades.
When our soldiers took power, you imposed sanctions on us and that prevented us from fighting the terrorists effectively. So ECOWAS and the terrorists are long-distance buddies with the blessing of the eternal imperialists: France and the USA.
-You talk to us about democracy but when one of your cronies changes the constitution of his country to stay in power you say nothing...
Here is some of the reasoning that goes on in these countries, especially at grassroots level.
This reasoning may seem absurd, but it is simple, effective and has a certain honesty about it, and I don't see how ECOWAS can get away with it.
Generally speaking, I think that ECOWAS has failed these countries a little bit by lumping them all together without taking into account the mentalities of the populations of each country, or their leaders. It tends to forget that there is a certain interdependence between the actions, the rhetoric of the military in power and the expectations of the people with regard to them.
Take the example of Burkina Faso, which I know a little well. If by chance the military were to organise elections at the moment, the president would be overthrown within 6 months to 1 year, especially if terrorism is still present. So if you talk about elections, they tell you that elections are for << those who have food to eat, those who have land to cultivate >>. The military in power even rely on this argument to do nothing, because they themselves are not safe from a coup d'état, especially if the population begins to understand that they are not as effective as they claim.
I don't know how things work in other countries such as Niger or Mali, but with such a view of things, ECOWAS can do nothing.
What's more, it has just given these countries another reason by extending their withdrawal by 6 months, which seems a bit desperate. Whatever happens in these countries during this period, they will hold ECOWAS responsible.This is perhaps the background to the allegations made by the President of Niger.He has found an opportunity to vent internal stress on Nigeria.The allegations could have been made about ECOWAS, but what better place than Nigeria or Côte d'Ivoire, depending on whether you are in Burkina Faso or Niger.
I disagree with everything you said, except the part about ECOWAS desperately trying to keep those three landlocked countries as member-states. I believe that ECOWAS should allow Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso to go away and do their thing. However, Niger Republic is a core national security interest of Nigeria, and therefore attempts would be made to bring Niger back into the fold. However, this would proceed by peaceful means.
-
I believe that ECOWAS is correct in its principle of rejecting the military coup d'états because unconstitutional take-overs of governments in Africa has been destabilizing and has led to many civil wars.
-
Nigeria's civil war (1967-1970) was partly based on the political instability resulting from two separate coups on January 1966 and July 1966. Liberian Civil Wars (1989-1997 and 1999-2003 ) has its roots in the bloody coup d'état of 1980, which ended 123 years of relative political stability in the Liberian republic. The horrific Sierra Leonian Civil War (1991-2002) is actually a spill-over conflict from neighbouring Liberia as Sierra Leonian citizens who fought in the First Liberian Civil War (1989-1997) simply returned home to foment trouble.
-
The Ethiopian Empire was already grappling with insurgency in its Eritrean region when the Marxist-Leninist coup happened in 1974. The political upheaval triggered a crippling civil war (1975-1991) within Ethiopia proper between the fledgling Marxist-Leninist military regime and renegade Trotskyite insurgents.
-
The problem of terrorism in the Sahel Belt has its roots in the Algerian Civil War (1992-2002) which was triggered by the 1992 military coup d'état that annulled the results of parliamentary elections that a major Islamic political party had won.
-
Many of the Algerian jihadists defeated in the civil war simply moved to Northern Mali to foment jihadi terrorism in the Sahel. The destruction of Libya's statehood by USA, France and UK merely turbocharged the pre-existing Sahelian terrorist problem as many Libyan jihadists passed their NATO-issued weapons to their jihadist brethren operating in Mali, Nigeria, Chad, etc. Boko Haram terrorism, which was being successfully handled by the Nigerian Police, suddenly transmogrified into a serious low level insurgency that led to the Nigerian military having to get involved as the newly acquired firepower of the terrorists became too much for the police to handle.
-
Apart from ECOWAS, all other pan-African bodies-- such as AU and SADC--do not recognize coup-installed regimes because of their inherent distabilizing nature and penchant for leading to civil wars.
-
Idi Amin's military coup of January 1971 was celebrated by thousands of Ugandans. Hundreds of them filled a football stadium in Kampala where they toasted to General Idi Amin. Within five years, the country was in turmoil with mass killing of political opponents often denounced as "pro-imperialist" (which is codeword for anybody disliked by the regime). In the end, Idi Amin seized Tanzanian land, which triggered the Tanzania-Uganda War (1978-1979).
-
ECOWAS is not the only pro-interventionist organization on African soil. The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) led by Republic of South Africa have forcibly intervened twice in the small Kingdom of Lesotho to scuttle actual or attempted military coups in 1998 and 2014.
-
You can call Nigeria all the abusive names you like, but ECOWAS will never recognize illegitimate regimes that came to power by unconstitutional coups. African Union will also not recognize them either.
-
I wish Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger good luck in their future endeavours. But if they wish to remain in ECOWAS, they must follow all the laid-down rules. Again, Niger Republic is a little different because of historic cultural ties to Nigeria, which means that the Nigerian government will always be seeking ways of reproachment (even if it wont officially recognize the military regime in charge).
ECOWAS doesn't have a monopoly on intervention,there are other sub-continental organisations that do it as you said,but the regional history and the international context seem different.if we went back 10 years perhaps all intervention by ECOWAS or any other regional actor in these countries would be applauded.
I agree with the background you've given and the conclusions you've drawn from it.Niger is strategic for Nigeria from what I've been able to understand, but is the current Niger a threat to Nigeria? And is it necessary to reinstall a deposed president by force of arms? And that won't cause more harm than good, especially as these populations are somewhat divided on the issue.The last two questions apply to ECOWAS.These are questions we can ask ourselves.
History shows that sanctions and threats tend to radicalise the powers that be and it is the people who generally pay the highest price.
Take the history of the countries you mentioned, even in their dreams neither the Nigerians nor the Ugandans and others will support any coup d'état by their own military. These people have the experience and they know it's not worth it.It's a bit cynical to tell them this, but if the people of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso can't learn from what happened in Nigeria, Uganda and Ethiopia, then let the painful experience be imposed on them so that they learn the hard way.I tend to think that countries that have suffered shocks due to coups d'état and the internal wars that followed have made them countries ripe for democracy or are currently democracies, especially if there has been little outside interference.
I think it's easier for Nigeria to develop better bilateral relations with Niger than to go under the cover of ECOWAS.
The economic prospects of these countries are not bright and I doubt that they will pull through in the meantime. However, the leaders of these countries are on a path of no return, because any step backwards would be seen as a personal failure. The politics of statesmen are often more subjective than objective.
The tragedy of all this is that it is the people who remain the victims.