Why Nigeria should consider hosting foreign military bases

DAMILARE EBENIZA

Damilare Ebeniza studied Political Science and International Relations in Nigeria, Benin Republic, and France, with a research focus on Nigerian history, economy, and foreign politics. He has experience as a conference interpreter and external relations management across Chad, Niger, Mali, and Guinea Conakry, for governmental, regional and international organisations in West Africa. He is an analyst for West African Democracy Radio in Dakar, Senegal and actively contributes to critical dialogues shaping the region’s socio-political landscape. Proficient in French, English, and four additional non-Nigerian African languages, he embodies a commitment to cross-cultural understanding and effective communication. He can be reached via comment@businessamlive.com

In the first week of November 2022, I flew from Nigeria to a high-level security meeting in Niamey, the capital of Niger. On the 3rd day of what was a five-day mission, a visit to Base 101 near the airport in Niamey was organised. Upon entering the Base then used by Western special forces notably the French and the Americans, our bus was stopped. We waited in the hot sun of the Sahel for about one hour and thirty minutes. Our bus was stopped because we needed clearance from the Nigerien Ministry of Defence. We had already passed some Western checkpoints; there were two military escort vehicles leading our way with two European soldiers in each. We were stopped at the checkpoint manned by Nigerien forces. They insisted that without the clearance from the Ministry of Defence, we were not allowed to go further.

The passengers with whom I waited were members of the European Parliament subcommittee on security and defence. They, like I, waited with no apparent anger or frustration. As anyone who lived in Niger would know, waiting in the bus under the hot sun of Niamey requires determination.

The reason I narrate this experience is because the description in the media of how foreign military bases operate and the arrangement between the host country and the foreign military guest is misleading if not outright misinformation. If we want to have serious discussions about issues of national importance, at least we should try to understand first what the issues are.  In any case, the reasons that may have led Niger, Mali, or Burkina Faso to replace the French or the Americans with the Russians should have no bearing on the determination of whether or not we as a country should host an American or a French base. Except we want to turn our foreign policy over to our neighbours to run, we should make the decision based on our national interest, and more importantly with a fuller understanding of the world we will be living in in the next ten to fifteen years.

From a security perspective, the next ten to fifteen years would be among the most challenging periods for our nation except we begin to act now. Kidnapping, terrorism, and secessionist agitators will not be among the top security threats to our nation in the coming decade. I am not saying the issues we are battling now would vanish if we do nothing about it. The point I am making here is that those are problems we can do and are doing something about. The next ten to fifteen years are going to be of a different order of magnitude.

Threat number one. Civil war in the Sahel. 

If we can overcome the seducing effect of hope over our judgement and refuse to be hostage to fortune, we should be asking ourselves the following question:

Which of the following scenarios is more likely in the Sahel in the next ten to fifteen years?

1. Continued military rule with relative stability and an economic growth higher enough to prevent starvation or the complete breakdown of law and order?
2. Another peaceful military coup with no bloodshed?
3. A bloody military coup?
4. A bloody military coup that morphs into a civil war?

In the three countries, and depending on what happened after the election, in Chad, we are currently in the phase of power consolidation with no path to a peaceful form of power transition in view. These regimes are supported by a foreign power and are under little international pressure. Once it becomes clearer that the problem in these nations will not be solved by replacing one foreign partner with another, the people will want to have more say in how they are governed. Where would a peaceful transition come from? From another military coup perhaps? It may help to know that most civil wars in Africa are the results of attempts to remove strong and mostly military leaders from power. The history of arm dealers in Africa and the prevailing security situation in those countries point only in one direction. The idea of a civil war in the Sahel with refugees moving across borders infiltrated by extremists is terrifying. For this particular threat, there is very little we can do except give our military any opportunity to collaborate with more advanced armies.

Threat number two: Conflict in the Indo-Pacific involving the US Army and the People Liberation Army of China.  

The second threat is even more urgent. But here, we can act with lasting positive impact. Covid19 and the war in Ukraine have exposed our inability to produce enough to feed ourselves. A war between the United States of America and China in the Indo-Pacific region will have far reaching consequences that maintaining law and order would be extremely challenging for unprepared nations. Covid19 and the war in Ukraine, may just be the last warning we would get. We have to invest in agriculture now as never before as though our very existence as a nation depends on it, because it may.  A war in the Indo-Pacific will result in a 40 percent drop in global trade with devastating effects for countries who depend on food import. And expansion of the war in Ukraine would have profound negative consequences as well.

Threat number three: AI, Deepfake and elections.

I have friends who, during the last elections, supported a presidential candidate whose policies they have not read let alone understood. Like many honest Nigerians, they focused on the Nigeria they want to change rather than the change they want to see, and on how to get there. Like a grain of sand in the desert, they were at the mercy of the prevailing campaign wind. These are all highly educated people who have had reasons to say “thank God we did not win’’. All this happened before the widespread use of AI and deep fake. If election is the way we want to be selecting our leaders, we have to be ready to fight disinformation and misinformation intended to influence our ability to decide as a nation. Our very existence as a functional society may depend on it. The surest way to win this fight is to build a stronger current of trust between those in power and the people they lead. This cannot be the job of social media influencers. I believe it is easier in Nigeria today than elsewhere. (More on this in another article)

Professor JIBRIN IBRAHIM is someone whose opinions I respect highly. My disagreement with the substance of the letter on foreign bases is not about to change that. He is one of giants on whose shoulders younger Nigerians like me should stand. But if we are to stand steady on their shoulders, we need to develop the ability to think for ourselves. This means that on some issues, like the one at hand, we will have to disagree with them.

The idea that unelected officials are shaping key foreign policy decisions of the government of the day is something we have to stop. I understand eminent Nigerians should help guide the government decision where they think they know best. But preempting a government decision because, in our opinion, it may be wrong is the surest way to limit the government’s ability to act. The reason President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan could not remove subsidy in 2012 is because, like now, some eminent Nigerians thought they should be allowed to influence a decision they are not responsible for. Those who turned the people against President Jonathan then have not acknowledged their role in the economic mess we are in today. As an English Member of Parliament, Edmond Burke once wrote to his electors “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement, and he betrays you if he sacrifices it to your opinion’’.  It is bad that governments all over the world make mistakes. What is worse, is a government that cannot act because of pressure from unelected officials. Advising government is one thing, pre-empting government deliberation in a view to shape is another. It is called lobbying.

What do we risk by allowing a French or an American base in this Country? Some have said our national pride, others have suggested it will not help the fight against insurgency, and that our nation has adopted the policy of non-aligned since 1960. Those are the three principal reasons. Let me emphasise here that the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria empowers the government in office to determine the orientation of our nation’s foreign policies based on the issues of today, not the issues of 1960. We may have had a policy of non-alignment then, what study has been done to determine if that policy is still fit for purpose in 2024? If the events in the Sahel proved anything at all, it is that our ability to influence events in our region is severely curtailed. Perhaps it is time for a new foreign policy orientation. What was so urgent that even contemplating hosting the base is something the government of this nation should avoid at all costs?

In the world we are today, a time will come when our nation will need friends. Non-alignment is the position worth holding only if you have some numbers on your side or if you prefer total irrelevance on the international scene. We have neither the numbers to influence even as a non-aligned country nor the luxury to afford irrelevance. We have to choose our own friends. Moreover, there are nations in the world that do not share American foreign policy positions that nonetheless are happy to have an American base on their soil. Nigerians in diaspora send home every year more than 20 billion dollars. Close to 80 percent of those come from the USA and the United Kingdom. And we should not even consider a deeper military corporation with the West?  One of the issues raised against the military bases is sovereignty. But if Turkey, Japan, The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Belgium, The United Kingdom etc, all have a US base, what aspect of sovereignty are we talking about here that each of these countries cannot seem to understand?

For the sake of arguments, let us suppose that all the issues raised in the letter are legitimate. Since we know the two countries urgently need a base now, can we not use this as an opportunity to negotiate a better deal than Niger and the rest may have gotten? It seems to me the reasons advanced to stop the federal government from considering the foreign military bases are not about the bases themselves. The letter is a symptom of a deeper national malaise: the belief that those in government cannot be trusted to do the right thing for this country. For better or for worse, they are all we have got.

business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com