Tag: Niger

As an avid watcher of what is going on around the world and particularly in our world in West Africa, I am not sure I know what is going on in Niger Republic, a previously friendly and neighbourly country to our country Nigeria.

The junta that is apparently in control since the July coup d’état has announced a three year transition program after the appointment of the cabinet and military governors of the various departments (states), the government now in effective control at least in the southern part of the country, has allowed access to the deposed President Muhammad Bazoum who is still a prisoner in the sprawling presidential villa in Niamey the capital. The government allows supporters of itself to demonstrate their loyalty in organised stadia and the streets shouting “down with France” while waving Russian flags which have miraculously appeared in large numbers in the country. This is very sad.

Is Niger ready to replace French domination with Russian servitude?  It is the case of a drowning person holding on to straw! This seems to frighten the Americans who seem to suspect Russian shenanigans behind every anti-Americanism in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Niger definitely has serious grouse against France arising from the humiliating colonial treaty uniformly imposed on former territories in French Africa. While giving them flag independence on one hand France maintains tight control over their finances by holding on to their exports and any foreign exchange earnings and keeping them within the franc zone which even after France has joined the European Union and adopted the Euro. This special franc is still strangely tied to special colonial currency uniting all former French colonies with France in a chokehold not permitting the legally independent country any chance to breathe or operate freely.

Unlike other Francophone countries, the rate of literacy in Niger is abjectly poor. Knowledge of Hausa will get you by in the country, not that this is bad, but it definitely shows the superficiality of French colonial legacy. Resources in the country are in French hands and in the hands of their puppets in government. Minerals like gold, uranium and petroleum belong to French companies that pay very little to the Nigerien government exchequer.

Read Also: State police is inevitable

France depends considerably, not totally, on substantial supply of uranium in the country to power its nuclear reactors for which its electricity depends. Much must be said for the strength of the Hausa culture which is dominant in a supposedly Francophone country. This fact has put the country permanently in the Nigerian orbit. About 60% of the population are Hausa, Fulani, Kanuri and Zarma, the same ethnic groups found on the other side of the border with Nigeria. In fact most of those on the border do not respect this border because families straddle and trade and farm without respect for the   poorly protected borders.

In normal times this unprotected border would have been an advantage to the mutuality of interest of the people of two neighbouring countries at the same level of economic development. But this is not the case with Nigeria and Niger whose burden Nigeria has had to carry all these years. This fact of dependency has been recognized by Niger for a long time and whoever was president of the country had regular access to the seat of power whether in Lagos or Abuja. This economic dependence has led to widespread smuggling on the border and attempt to control it has led to resentment on both borders by the two communities benefiting from it.

When President Muhammad Bazoum was removed from power for whatever reasons including nepotism, corruption, lack of support for the military in its wars against Boko Haram from the south and Touareg militants from the Southwest and the North, Nigeria felt it had to stop the pandemic of military incursion into politics particularly in the region and its backyard. This was at the point when it rallied the ECOWAS for support of its stiff resistance against the new junta in Niamey.  It just happened that our president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is the incumbent chairman of ECOWAS. Those running the inchoate foreign policy of Nigeria without the input of knowledgeable and steady hands misadvised the government to issue an ultimatum without adequate study of the situation. The states in the far north of Nigeria felt obliged because of the pull of religion and ethnic consanguinity to oppose any military operations in Niger which may spill over to Nigeria and also because of their hidden economic interests. 

This fact raises a fundamental question of the loyalty of a section of the country to the national government. Those in charge of Nigerian foreign policy must always bear in mind that there must be sufficient consensus before a country like Nigeria can embark on any foreign policy that may have to be backed by force. With this strong opposition of the North, the question of military operations from Nigeria as part of ECOWAS force has become unsustainable in view of our national strategic political interest. Whatever other ECOWAS leaders may say, military operations have become untenable.  It is also impolitic for ECOWAS headed by Nigeria to be in league with the USA and France to fight against an African country unless vital interests are seriously in jeopardy. From our experience with ECOMOG during the Babangida and Abacha regimes, Nigeria would have to shoulder the economic and military burdens and provide most of the soldiers and equipment for any military operations. With our current economic situation, Nigeria is not in a position to bear such an economic cost of military operations. What we can do whether within ECOWAS or without, we have already done by stopping visible trade relations between the two countries and electricity supply from Nigeria which under existing protocol, we are obliged to supply.

The threat of military action against the government in Niger remains a threat and is a form of policy contrivance which comes into play as a useful diplomatic ploy to force your opponent to change course, it should not be taken literally. This is normal diplomatic language; there is nothing unusual in threatening the use of force as a ploy to facilitate diplomatic solution. Emissaries continue to be sent from Nigeria/ECOWAS to Niger to find amicable solutions to the problem.

Curiously, military chiefs of ECOWAS countries continue to talk about being prepared for the D-day as if war is a game! The United States has now dispatched a knowledgeable diplomat, Kathleen Fitzgibbon as ambassador to Niger. This envoy is familiar with Niger and Nigeria where she was previously deputy head of mission. Her mission is to help find a solution to the diplomatic impasse in Niger apparently in coordination with Nigeria. One hopes that a face-saving solution can still be found to the diplomatic entanglement in Niger. This action taken by the United States is an affirmation that the USA acknowledges the fact that the junta is effectively in control which is an aspect in international politics. Even President Putin of Russia is advising the Malian head of state to follow pacific route in his militant support for Niger. The Nigerien junta itself is saying it removed their country’s president to protect Niger and Nigeria. Perhaps our government should find out in what ways a military government in Niger would be protective of Nigerian interest.

In the meantime, the American and French military presence remains in the country. China is also having major shares in the only small refinery in the country and Russia through its mercenary Wagner group is showing interest in the fragile country while fanatical jihadists mouthing the slogan of ISIS are pressing down hard from the Algerian and Libyan Desert. The situation in Niger, an arid and largely inconsequential country, has brought in big players in the global game of diplomacy with Nigeria being massively involved.

For the future, this is a time to really look at what our future relations with our immediate neighbouring countries should be. I wrote a journal article on “Nigeria and its neighbours” sometimes in 1976 or thereabouts and I had advocated that we should seize Equatorial Guinea and annex it to our country. Unfortunately we let the opportunity pass. We should now look closely at the possibility of closer integration still within ECOWAS with countries like Niger, Benin, and Equatorial Guinea where we have overlapping economic and political interest. There were interest shown in this kind of closer integration with Nigeria in the past but because of our short-sightedness, we allowed the interest to wane and pass. This special relation I am suggesting is not annexation but some kind of closer economic integration like what exists among the United States, Canada and Mexico despite their different world view and level of economic and political development.

In the meantime, I advise with all the emphasis at my command that no national interest would be served by leading an ECOWAS military intervention in Niger. If we do, we would destabilize Nigeria and Niger itself where we would be faced by military resistance and jihadist forces from the north and Southwest of the country. It will be a no-win situation. We should continue to mount pressure until the situation unravels itself.