Logo of ECOWAS
Several facts have come to light about the Niger coup that are so puzzling that they make one’s head swim.
How can a head of state be “overthrown” by his own presidential guard, and yet be allowed by them to write an opinion piece for the Washington Post, stating his case firmly and extolling the way his “overthrown” government did its best to serve the interests of the nation?
If the “prison warders” keeping him have allowed him so much freedom [including arranging a meeting with him for the Deputy US Secretary of State] then he must have been a good leader (at least in parts)?
But here comes yet another puzzle: if he was a good leader, why are huge crowds turning up on the streets of Niamey to demonstrate in support of the soldiers who have overthrown him?
The leaders of ECOWAS, at their special summit in Abuja, threatened to use all measures, INCLUDING FORCE, to reverse the coup, unless the coup-makers reinstated President Mohamed Bazoum by August 6, 2023.
That deadline has now expired. But have the ECOWAS nations got the forces – with the fire power and JOINTLY well-trained enough– to carry out their threat?
Especially as not only Niger, but now, Mali and Burkina Faso, have publicly announced, in defiant terms, that they would resist an “invasion” of Niger by ECOWAS, with all their combined might?
Above all, can ECOWAS rely on outside support – particularly the military support – of France, the EU and the US, if ECOWAS were to attempt to invade Niger?
The worrying, determining “unknown” factor is actually this: where DOES the United States REALLY stand, in the current political struggles, not only occurring in Niger, but also in Mali and Burkina Faso?
On the face of it, the US and its "allies" are all – still – the “Western” NATO countries that united and fought the Soviet Union politically until it collapsed.
But there have been reports that the US and France (especially) did not see eye to eye in Mali before the coup in Mali [May 2021]; and that some of the pivotal officers who carried out that coup were American-trained.
Burkina Faso's coup of September 2022 too, has been described as American-influenced with officers sympathetic to the US replacing French military advisors to the then Burkina Faso administration. Similar ambiguities surround the coup in Guinea of September 2021.
The situation in Niger is even more dangerous for ECOWAS. The US has built what is described as a “huge” military facility in Niger, that is reputed to have cost at least $500 million. The use of sophisticated drones is being taught to Niger soldiers at the base. It is only realistic to anticipate that Niger troops might have access to some of those lethal weapons to deploy against ECOWAS countries if ECOWAS were to carry out its threat to attack Niger.
Now, if the US were to allow the Nigerien army leaders who overthrew Bazoum to use weapons and facilities from their base in Niger, they would do so under a diplomatic ruse called "plausible deniability". I strongly urge the ECOWAS leaders to familiarise themselves with the historical instances when that type of deception has been employed, before they fire a shot against Niger.
You ask: isn't that supposition rather alarmist? Ha -- in military conflicts, it is better to be alarmist than -- dead! To use a cliché, "to be forewarned is to be fore-armed.
All these complications mean that ECOWAS must be extremely careful in what it does over Niger. Let me throw in this: the French always find the Americans difficult to handle wherever their interests "converge" anywhere.
It happened in the anti-Communist campaign in Indo-China, and now it is happening in the "anti-jihadist struggle" in Africa; specifically, in our neighbourhood in Africa. We are far less powerful than France, and so, ought to refrain from going emotional over a fracas that also involves the US and its ostensible "ally", France.
We must seek facts and act on the facts, and the facts, alone. Otherwise we could be taught a very bitter lesson – just as some politicians found out, too late, in South Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan and other places where too much foreign intervention was at play. It would be negligent folly to forget that thousands of innocent people died, to satisfy so-called principles that turned out to be empty.
In that context, the ECOWAS countries must ponder this: assuming that they are, in fact, concerned about the moral issue of whether an elected government should be allowed to be overthrown by a group of ambitious military men, should that, in a complex world situation, is the ONLY criterion that they should employ to assess the necessity to intervene, when such intervention will definitely put thousands of precious lives at risk?
I think we should not ignore the lesson to be learnt from the current barrage of brutal murders being inflicted on Ukraine by Russia. What is “The Purpose” of the war? It is to enable Ukraine to affirm its total independence from Russia, by deciding to join NATO. Is that affirmation of sovereignty worth the risk (now realised) of nearly razing Ukraine to the ground?
Of course, the political leadership of Ukraine is very bravely trying to actualise their sovereignty by deciding to join NATO. But would the numerous women and children exposed to death and armed brutality, from one second to the next second for a good 18 months now, agree with their political leadership, in the choice the leadership made on their behalf?
Would the dead Ukrainians not be justified, if they concluded that their leaders should have been more clever than exposing them to the cruelty of a person like Putin, whose macho mentality has been made known to all? And over such a choice as joining NATO?
The leaders of ECOWAS nations must think of the welfare of the entire populace of West Africa, before they resort to arms to rescue the overthrown government of Mr Mohamed Bazoum. I mean, we don't even know who Bazoum really is.
Was his government trying hard enough to fulfil the promises it had made to the Nigerien electorate? Did the members of that government engage in what the masses hate most – conspicuous consumption underwritten by the proceeds of corruption??
Military action spells inevitable death to many innocent people. Therefore, hard and harsh judgements must be made about the potential beneficiaries of military action before it is embarked upon.
The worst thing about military action, in fact, is that its consequences are so utterly multifarious and UNPREDICTABLE!
Equally important is the fact that, by engaging in the act of sitting in judgement over a fallen regime, the leaders who have now become judges, must look into their own performance and ask whether there are things they must not do whilst they are in power, lest they oblige their fellow leaders, in future, to expose their hapless citizenry to danger, in order to save "alien leaders", who might not have ruled with too much sagacity.
