Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger’s exit from ECOWAS, By Ademola Adebisi

In the last week of the month of January, the news of the exit of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) hit the global audience, perhaps without much surprise.

According to a joint statement issued by the military heads of state of the three countries, their action was predicated on the unsatisfactory manner the sub regional organization has been handling their suspension and the imposition of economic sanctions on their countries following their rape on democracy in their respective country in outright violation of ECOWAS’ principle.

To be sure, the trio rhetorically said they were exiting because ECOWAS: “… has not provided the needed assistance to our states in the context of our existential fight against terrorism and insecurity; worse still, when these countries decided to take their destiny in their own hands, it adopted an irrational and unacceptable posture by imposing illegal, illegitimate, inhumane and irresponsible sanctions in violation of its own text”.

But from all indication, the reasons for their withdrawal seem not absolutely what they have craftily articulated. Their action it seems, rest on the following: chief of these is the fact that, from all appearances, they do not want to keep to the terms of their promise and agreement to transit power to democratically elected governments in their countries. Because of their intransigence and hesitation to return power to democratic government, ECOWAS has remained a thorn in their flesh. Exiting ECOWAS therefore, seems a ploy to create ample room for themselves to be able to manipulate the transition agenda and perpetuate themselves in power.

Also, the action seems aimed at hoodwinking the ignorant masses of their countries into believing that they are fighting the enemy ECOWAS in the national interest with the ultimate aim of bolstering their fledging legitimacy. This we could see manifesting in Niger in the joyful street marches and celebrations that ignorantly greeted the announcement of the exit. Beyond this, they seem to be calculating that, their exit will weaken and hurt ECOWAS countries’ interest and dent Nigeria’s leadership of the sub regional body.

Before I explore the above points further, the pertinent question is: did ECOWAS just wake up one day to impose sanctions on them? Certainly not. The body did so because they violated the principle of democracy to which their countries thumb-printed as members of ECOWAS. This is their transgression; and like every transgression they are facing the consequences and are also expected to sin no more. For in and out of ECOWAS, they may remain pariah states on the world stage as long as they continue to perpetuate themselves in power and violate democratic ethos.

This hasty action to withdraw from the organization cannot of course earn the juntas an enduring legitimacy. This is because, sooner than even later, the poverty-stricken masses of their countries will continue to feel the self-inflicted economic hardship the withdrawal portends for the countries. With this exit for example, they may further cease to enjoy preferential trade tariffs; free mobility of labour may be hampered and their citizens may be deprived of job opportunities with ECOWAS and its agencies thereby diminishing their visibility as international players in the sub region.

Although no organization would like to lose its members, however, the juntas should not over rate their past presence in the organization as to believe that their exit will weaken and hurt ECOWAS and its Nigerian leadership. For example, over the years, the three countries’ financial contribution to the body has been negligible. According to a report in 2018, Nigeria alone contributed financially more than what the rest 12 other countries apart from Ghana are Côte d’Ivoire contributed in 16years. Of the total contribution of$2.913 billion, while Nigeria contributed more than $1.17 billion as community levy during the period, the rest 12 countries (apart from Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire) which included Burkina Faso Mali and Niger, contributed $879 million. Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire contributed $508.3 and $347.2 million respectively. Nigeria’s contribution over the period formed 40.42 per cent while those of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire stood at 19.4 and 11.4 per cent respectively.

Worse still, the three countries ranked among the poorest in the world. Is it therefore not more sensible to seek international cooperation and integration with immediate neighbours to first tackle poverty rather than engaging in economic insularity? As alternative to ECOWAS, the three countries some time ago formed what they called Alliance of Sahel States to promote the security and economic progress of the trio. No doubt, without the cooperation of neighbouring states, the alliance can hardly achieve its purpose more so that the three of them are militarily weak, economically poor and politically unstable. Neither also can their growing dependency on Russia work sans the policies of good neighbourliness, friendliness and the spirit of African brotherhood.

Let it be said that if nature had landlocked this bloc of countries, it makes no diplomatic sense to further padlock the doors of the country instead of unlocking them.

Instead of engaging in diplomatic gyrations and what the Nigerian military leadership of the old would describe as undue radicalism, the military rulers in the three countries should show much more commitment to the programs of transition of power to democratically elected governments in their countries which is the issue at the heart of their disagreement with ECOWAS. Discrediting and blackmailing ECOWAS without you shifting grounds too is not helpful. Diplomacy is of course a game of give and take. Let the juntas be reminded that power and regime are ephemeral. In 2002, Mauritania, also a founding member like the three of them, withdrew from the same ECOWAS. Years after, it sought readmission. Before then in 1984, Morocco withdrew from the Organization of African Unity (AU) over the issue of recognition of Western Sahara. Later in 2017, it sought readmission. Ipso facto then, over Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, this cup shall pass.

Dr Adebisi writes from Elizade University Ilara-Mokin, Ondo State.