By Misbahu Shehu
The imperative for regional cooperation has never been more expedient than now when the world is engulfed in a deluge of existential crises ranging from economic meltdowns, climate debacles, hunger, poverty, terrorism, and wars threatening the collective survival of the human race. At a time when nations are still nursing the wounds inflicted by the COVID-19 Pandemic on the globe’s economy and devising strategies for mutual development, it is befuddling to contemplate the rationale fueling the Sahelian States of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso’s disingenuous resolve to exit the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) which has for decades served as a buffer to the socioeconomic upheavals in the region. The exigencies for strategic cooperation and alliance among nations especially among developing countries in tackling the array of development challenges bedeviling their regions cannot be overstressed.
While the quest for martyrdom status is a noble aspiration, African leaders as individuals must not seek to attain such status by sacrificing the collective well-being of their people as this is the crux of the notorious headstrong disposition of the military leaders of the Sahelian states to ignore reason in the face of the obvious inimical consequences of their actions on the development of their people and nations. How far can these nations go without the collective support of their brotherly nations when they are the most vulnerable to the socioeconomic maladies affecting the region?
ECOWAS and Nigeria have made significant efforts in containing the fracas since the withdrawal announcement by the three Sahel countries and the formalization of the Alliance of the Sahel States (AES) through the Liptako-Gourma Charter in September 2023. All financial and economic sanctions and restrictions imposed on the Sahelian States at the start of the crises were lifted. Meetings have been held at various levels and Committees have been established to reach an amicable resolution all of which the military juntas have refused to honour. The intentions of the military actors in the Sahelian States have no positive implications for the common welfare of their people and the region but to perpetuate themselves in power. Such repugnant aversion for reason and dialogue cannot be said to be in the best interest of the people of the Sahel whom the military juntas claim to represent. Dislocating and disconnecting the people of the Sahel in their millions from their brothers and sisters in the region cannot be the noblest aspirations of a true leader, especially considering the historical, economic, and cultural ties that bind the region together.
Consequently, the antagonistic postures of the military juntas in the Sahel will only plunge the already volatile countries into further chaos as it were. For example, the security situation in the Sahel will be exacerbated as a result of the military junta’spreoccupation with governance rather than tackling the threatens confronting them. Thus, a lacuna has been invariably created in the security sector in the Sahel.
AES’ exit from ECOWAS would have grave implications for trade development in the region since the Commission is bound to impose sanctions barring its member countries from transacting trade with the Sahelian countries. This development would disrupt economic and development cooperation in the Sahel exposing the citizens to harsher economic and living conditions without hope for redemption in sight. ECOWAS would withdraw its resident representatives in the Sahel saddled with promoting economic integration and cooperation among member states in the region. It would be nearly impossible for the Sahelian States to thrive without the economic and development support of the larger countries, especially because the Sahelian States are landlocked.
ECOWAS has been a critical partner in providing humanitarian support to the Sahelian States but these interventions would cease with the exit of the AES from the Commission. ECOWAS’ humanitarian intervention in the Sahel is focused on peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, as well as regional integration and development initiatives. These human-centred interventions would stop exposing the already vulnerable citizens to worsened existential situations.
In conclusion, the enormous loss that the citizens of the Sahelian States would endure if they exit ECOWAS cannot be quantified. The human connections and intercultural relations in commerce, education, and tourism that would be impacted would take another lifetime of concerted diplomacy to rebuild. One would therefore expect the military juntas to consider the option of dialogue, peace, and integration instead of pushing for disunity and long-lasting conflict that they would not be exonerated from. ECOWAS a regional institution cannot continue to hold itself to ransom in the hope that its straying brothers would realize their mistakes and return to the fold for sustained. At some point, ECOWAS would have to take the hard decision of retribution.
Misbahu Shehu is a public affairs commentator and International Relations Analyst
