The military coup in Niger has provoked a muscular response from President Tinubu and from ECOWAS. However, a military intervention in Niger is not in the interest of Nigeria. It will lead to crisis in Niger which will inevitably spill over to Nigeria, particularly its poor regions in the North. There will be an influx of poor people from Niger most of whom will not find jobs in Nigeria and may, therefore, be open to recruitment to the ranks of bandits and insurgents. The impact of our economic difficulties is already biting Niger given their links with our economy.
There is evidence of the involvement of nationals of the neighbouring countries in our conflicts in the North East, in banditry and in farmer-herder conflicts. Our border with Niger cannot be easily policed. The influx of both refugees and criminal elements cannot be contained if there is crisis in Niger. We will do well to recall what happened at the height of the instability and crisis in Tchad. Highways became unsafe, especially in the North of our country and the military had to be deployed to the Lake Chad area and to our roads.
Our democracy like most democracies today is fragile. Key participants in our election are still trying to delegitimise the outcome on the flimsy excuse that it was not a perfect election. Our security forces are also overstretched given the increased number of theatres of insecurity in Nigeria.
It is, therefore, not in our best interest to deepen the crisis in Niger with military action. Besides it is not our business to “spread democracy” let alone by force. Democracy cannot be introduced from abroad or from another country and not by military force. The failure of the all-powerful USA in their many interventions in the world is enough lesson for us in developing countries.
- Protest: Navy forestalls looting of Dawanau grains market in Kano
- DisCos’ revenue dip as foreign companies fail to pay $16.11m power debt in Q1
In our copycat mentality and our delusion of grandeur as ‘giant of Africa’, we tend to adopt the tools of global hegemons. We want to humiliate the military of another country by giving it ultimatum and even before the expiry of the ultimatum we impose sanctions. Sanctions on a country is collective punishment of its people and therefore an immoral tool of hegemons. ECOWAS is not a sovereign; it is a club. Countries, on the other hand, are sovereign. Unelected ECOWAS officials should do well to temper their language.
Additionally, we should be careful not to back the neo-colonial interests of France that is being challenged in its former African colonies. The liberation of ‘Francophone’ African countries from the clutches of France was not completed. France controls the national reserves of 14 African countries. It imposed what it called colonial debt. A debt owed for colonising (‘civilising’) African countries.
France has tied the currency of the so-called ‘francophone’ countries to the French currency and to the Euro subsequently. This has frustrated the ambition of ECOWAS to have a common currency for West Africa. All over Africa, there is now an awareness of the dishonourable role of France in Africa.
This is true even in Europe. Giogia Meloni the Prime Minister of the Italian Far Right government, in her spat with President Macron, accused France of continuing to exploit Africa in part by printing the currency of 14 African countries that are tied to France and charging them mint fees.
Specifically, on Niger, she accused France of complicity in using child labour to extract minerals from Niger. Arguing further that France extracts 30 per cent of the uranium it needs to power its nuclear reactors from Niger while 90 per cent of the population of Niger has no electricity. She concluded that this is the reason Africans are abandoning their continent. Astonishingly, she said the solution is not migration but the liberation of Africa from Europeans.
We must ensure that there is a peaceful settlement of the crisis in Niger. This should include the removal of military bases in Niger. France has a military base as well as the USA. Belgium, Germany and even a Scandinavian country are said to have troops in Niger. Why? They said they are ‘helping’ to protect Niger and contain terrorists in the Sahel. If that were true, they would have threatened to withdraw their troops as a bargaining card for the restoration of President Bazoum, instead their threat is to withdraw humanitarian aid and invade the very country they are supposed to be helping.
Nigeria used to be concerned about foreign military bases in Africa as part of its Africa-centred foreign policy. It should still be concerned. To have military bases in your neighbours’ land is a security red flag.
Moreover, how do you trust the people who opened the floodgate of Gaddafi’s armoury by destroying Libya and killing its president? Massive arms flowed into the Sahel region along with trained Sahelian citizens working in Libya. Al Qaeda and ISIS took advantage of the opportunity to make greater inroads into West Africa.
The French can’t claim they did not see this coming when they and the UK led the invasion of Libya. All the frontline countries to Libya and North Africa – Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad – are former French colonies. Since the French sent troops to these countries to atone for their sins in Libya, not much has been shown for it. Some have argued they use the insurgents as a check on the leaders of these countries.
If AU and ECOWAS want to send troops, they should send them to fight armed insurgents in the Sahel. This will make much more difference to the people of the region and release their potential for democratic governance.
Hashim resides at 63B Sokoto Road Kano
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
