ECOWAS: The failure of Nigeria to lead

DAMILARE EBENIZA 

Damilare Ebeniza is a multilingual regional affairs analyst. He sent this piece from Lagos  

Last April, during a panel discussion organised by a think-tank based in Cotonou to discuss what to expect from the incoming administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the moderator asked me this hypothetical question: “Considering the political tension in Senegal, if the situation degenerates further in the coming months, will Nigeria be prepared to intervene militarily?” I responded that a Nigerian intervention in crises in our region is not a question of will but of means. I added that the resources of the Nigerian Army have never been as stressed as they are now since the Civil War. That our country’s ability to project power beyond her borders is significantly limited by our internecine strife.

As the reader could guess, my assumption was that intervention in a crisis outside our borders would require resources Nigeria does not currently have.  Little did I know that when presented with a unique opportunity to shape regional politics at the lowest possible cost, our nation would choose a diplomacy of hide and seek.

In case the reader may have forgotten, a little recap of the Nigerian diplomacy of contradictions following the coup in Niger is necessary. A few days after the coup, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, freshly elected to lead ECOWAS, stated to the whole world that Nigeria, the giant of Africa, was ready to intervene militarily and gave the junta in Niger a fifteen-day ultimatum. When the fifteen-day ultimatum expired, the hide-and-seek diplomacy started with a cascade of declaration after declaration. The two-week ultimatum turned into months.

When the Nigerian Senate and some Northern leaders said No to the military intervention in Niger, the President’s spokesperson announced on national TV, that the decision to intervene in Niger is not a Nigerian decision, it is an ECOWAS decision.  Mr Ajuri Ngelale turned ECOWAS into a transparent veil behind which our nation could hide our inability to articulate a coherent policy objective in Niger. Is it possible that a Nigerian president would publicly state his intention to send our troops to war in another country on decisions made by other nations? ECOWAS, just like any organisation, does not decide. Individuals within the organisation make the decisions.

Once it became clear that the CNSP (the Junta in Niger) was not buying the empty threat we were selling, our president announced at the United Nations General Assembly that he has decided to resolve the crisis in Niger by diplomatic means. The reason it was convenient to call the first decision an ECOWAS decision is simple: Our nation needed to hide, and ECOWAS provided a perfect cover. And when we were found hiding, Mr President responsibly said “I, not ECOWAS, have decided to pursue diplomacy.” What this diplomacy meant would become clearer over the months leading to the withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger from ECOWAS.

To understand just how inconsistent our efforts on the crisis in Niger have been, let me quote from a communiqué of ECOWAS’ Heads of State meeting held in Abuja on 6 December 2023. The communiqué was posted on www.statehouse.gov.ng on 10 December 2023. 

“The Authority decides to set up a committee of Heads of State made up of the President and Head of State of the Republic of Togo, the President and Head of State of the Republic of Sierra Leone, the President and Head of State of the Republic of Benin, to engage with the CNSP and other stakeholders with a view to agreeing on a short transition roadmap, establishing transition organs as well as facilitating the setting up of a transition monitoring and evaluation mechanism towards the speedy restoration of constitutional order. 

“Based on the outcomes of the engagement by the committee of the Heads of State with CNSP, the Authority will progressively ease the sanction imposed on Niger. In the event of failure by the CNSP to comply with the outcomes of the engagement with the committee, ECOWAS shall maintain all the sanctions, including the use of force, and shall request the African Union and all other partners to enforce the targeted sanctions on members of the CNSP and their Associates.”

How ECOWAS knew the outcome of such an engagement that Niger must comply with under threat of military intervention even before the engagement takes place remains a mystery till date. For Nigeria, if diplomacy was the option chosen for resolving the crisis, at least we should have done a better job of hiding our small stick. Once the fifteen days expired, the stick in our diplomacy has turned into a carrot the junta in Niger does not want. The lesson for us here is that no diplomacy is better than bad diplomacy.

Military coups in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso are a regular feature of political development. The most important player in re-establishing democracy after coups is the people of these nations. Since the military leaders of Mali and Burkina Faso have successfully turned the masses on their side, it was easy to guess this was going to be the formula in Niger. Perhaps if ECOWAS had carried out an honest assessment of the impact of its sanctions in Mali and Burkina Faso, a different course of action may have been considered in Niger. Anyone who knows a little about Niger knows that Bazoum’s refusal to resign on time froze the political process of that country for months. Had he resigned at a time when the Junta’s hold on power and popular support were still uncertain, maybe the earlier diplomatic pressure may have led to a better outcome than the situation we now face.

It will take a new article to fully explain the reasons behind the withdrawal of these three nations from ECOWAS. Here, let me say this. Our sub-region has entered the second Cold War fractured. What is happening in the Sahel is linked to the war in Ukraine and the crisis in the Red Sea. The sub-region is fractured because Nigeria refused to lead. During a chat with a former colleague of the current Prime Minister of Mali, he told me that Nigeria has what it takes to lead the region and that what our francophone neighbours are waiting for is for us to lead and they will follow. I heard a version of this same statement on a Television programme in Togo a week ago.

The reasons we are not able to lead date back before the current administration. Gone are those days when President Obasanjo could summon President Faure of the Republic of Togo to Abuja following a post-election crisis and demand a proper election. In diplomacy, the threat of the stick, the deterrence it carries, is more important than the stick itself. Once you begin to abuse your power (by closing your borders for close to two years for example) people adapt and you risk losing that leverage. In April 2022, I attended a bilateral meeting between Nigeria and one of our neighbours to sign an MoU for the joint management of border communities. That country prepared the draft in French, did the English translation and sent the English copy to the Ministry in Abuja. In the Nigerian delegation at that meeting, not a single person could speak French beyond the beginner’s level.  

Way forward

We have to re-engage on a Country-to-Country basis without any arrogance, threat or attempt to dictate. We have to rebuild trust by sincerely demonstrating our willingness to understand the specifics of each country. Guinea Conakry would be a place to start. Not only because Guinea has not left the regional organisation, but also because Guinea could be an intermediary that preserves for the juntas the popularity derived from anti-western and anti-ECOWAS rhetoric. 

That is how we lead.

ECOWAS image is dirty now and visits by Secretary Blinken and Chancellor Scholz are unhelpful. We should not allow channelling our diplomacy through ECOWAS to put us in a position where we cannot act.

Every era in history brings for those who live through it, promises and dangers. A nation therefore has to shape its policy to take maximum advantage of the great promises of today while avoiding its dangers. In an unstable and merciless international environment, defining what is true and what should shape our actions or inactions cannot be foreign-made. Our understanding of what is going on around us and how we can influence it in our favour is going to be our utmost survival skills in the coming years.

From Napoleon to Kaizer Wilhelm II, from Hitler to Stalin, the history of Europe is the history of leaders who tried to unite European countries. Even the European Union is the same project with different methods. How to unite ethnically diverse entities under a unified structure of authority is the challenge that shaped and still shapes Europe today. Why this persistent effort across ages? The simple answer is that the world of tomorrow is going to be the world of great empires. This was known to emirs of our northern empires and the Obas who founded the Oyo. It is the direction in which the current of human history flows. Nigeria, with all her problems, is the most advanced of such projects on the African continent today. What we make of it is in our hands. 

• 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