Follow Us on Google
Diplomacy is defined, by the dictionary, as the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and tactful way. It is the application of tact and skill in international relations to solve international disputes. After the two world wars, which nearly consumed most parts of the world, and the introduction of nuclear arsenals in the prosecution of international wars with its attendant threats to the existence of the earth and all living things, the world came together and established the United Nations as the Organisation in charge for the maintenance of world peace.
The Charter of the United Nations is very clear on the modalities and process of achieving international peace and resolving international disputes. It states in its preamble that “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, … and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods that armed force shall not be used save in the common interest and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims”.
The aim of the Charter, according to Article 1(1) is to maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threat to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. It’s gratifying to note that the United Nations Charter went further in Chapter VI, Article 33(1) to state emphatically how international disputes are settled when it provided that, “the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”
Applying the principles and provisions of this Charter to the military intervention in Niger Republic to the response by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which issued a seven day ultimatum to the General Abdourahamane Tchiani led military coup in Niger to restore the overthrown government of President Mohamed Bazoum or be driven out by military force, we make the following observations. We did warn that it was a false start by ECOWAS and will lead to unintended negative consequences if by seven days the Organisation did not fulfill its threat. Seven days passed and the ECOWAS, led by Tinubu, failed woefully to carry out the threat. This failure has led to the strengthening of the junta and utter disgrace of Nigeria in the international community. One, Nigerien citizens insulted the leader of Nigeria himself by adding Ebola to his already long list of names. Two, they insulted the emissaries of the leader of Nigeria, comprising the former Head of State, Abubakar Abdulsalami and the reverred Sultan of Sokoto. It has never happened before in the history of Nigeria that a predominantly muslim country will shun the head of the Muslim faith in Nigeria and a former Nigerian Head of State. Three, they brought up charges of high treason on their former President, Bazoum, which may carry death penalty. Four, the majority of the countries along the Sahel region have thrown their weight behind the coupists. The reason they gave for their actions is that ECOWAS did not accord them fair hearing before reaching a decision. Five, and very sadly, the insecurity in Nigeria is not abating. 36 soldiers have just been ambushed and killed by the bandits in Niger who also claimed to down a military helicopter in which seven service men lost their lives.
On the contrary, a team of respected Islamic Clerics in Nigeria, led by Abdulraman Ahmad, travelled to Niger and made resounding success in their meeting with the Nigerien junta. They were welcomed as respected Nigerian citizens who were in genuine search for peace. The Junta apologised for insulting eminent Nigerian citizens. The only request the respected Islamic Clerics, known as Ulamas, made on them was to give peace a chance by allowing the international dispute to be settled amicably through dialogue. This came after the earlier success made by the former Emir of Kano in the dialogue with the junta.
The difference in the success of the eminent Nigerians and the failure of the ECOWAS led by Tinubu lies in the application of diplomacy and the application of threat of unprovoked force respectively by the different categories of the persons on the coup plotters in Niger. A look at the different approaches showed that whereas the eminent Nigerians applied the international laws as required by the United Nations, ECOWAS applied the threat of brute force first, which is illegal in international law. A look at the preamble of the charter above provided among other things “to ensure … that armed force shall not be used save in the common interest”. Can anybody in the right frame of mind suggest that the use of armed force will be in the common interest of Nigeria and Niger Republic now? With the level of poverty pervading both countries and the insurgents operating in large unguarded spaces in both countries, who can honestly utter the use of military force in the solution of the internal problem of Niger. It may be important to note that what happened in Niger is an internal affair of Niger and has not even graduated to an international dispute, so the unthoughtful ill-advised seven day ultimatum to use force portrays ECOWAS to be the aggressor in the international dispute not an unbiased interlocutor of peace between the factions of power grabbers in Niger. Fighting for democracy is not the same as fighting for Bazoum.
A careful observation at the aim of the UN puts paid to the intention of the United Nations “to bring about by peaceful means … adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”. Using military force cannot be interpreted as trying to settle international dispute by peaceful means. The hardship the seven border states of Nigeria to Niger are passing through now because of closed borders can tell you what they will witness in the event of an all out war between the two countries. Meanwhile it was after the ill-fated declaration of war within seven days by ECOWAS if the junta in Niger fails to restore the overthrown Bazoum that the Nigerian leader considered it important to meet with the governors of the seven northern states to discuss the international embarrassment on Nigeria and the hardship for the states of Nigeria. Medicine after death?
In Article 33(1) that deals with the international settlement of disputes, “the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” It looks like the junta was even right here while the ECOWAS leader wasn’t. The international law states that the first responder should make enquiries first as to the cause of the dispute before even recommending any solution. The junta told the Ulamas from Nigeria that they were not even given the fair hearing to explain why they overthrew the government of President Bazoum before the sanctions and threat of war. The next step was negotiation. This is a dialogue between the two contending parties without the interference of any third party. Nigeria, as a big brother neighbour, ought to have negotiated first with Niger before involving other countries in the ECOWAS. This is in recognition of the fact that in the event of an outbreak of hostilities between the neighbours, Nigeria would bear more than 80% of the material and human resources needed to prosecute the war. The premature involvement of ECOWAS even before the consultation with the Senate of Nigeria, the approving authority for war, is like descending the hill while the aim of the climber is to be on top of the hill.
Mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, which are different aspects of alternative dispute resolution should be applied first before even resorting to regional agencies or arrangements. What happened with the ECOWAS declaration of war within seven days was an affront to the application of diplomacy in settling international disputes. It lacked tact and skill needed to bring about amicable resolution of the crisis in Niger.
The best approach to the settlement of the dispute in Niger is to treat it as the internal affairs of Niger that poses no threat whatsoever to international peace and tranquillity. Negotiation should be encouraged between the coup plotters and the overthrown President Bazoum to find an amicable way to restore democracy in the beleaguered country. If Bazoum should accept to go voluntarily, what will the junta give in return? He should be able to commit to speedy return to democracy. Sanctions should be lifted and borders opened when he accepts reasonable date to return the country to democratic rule. This is how diplomacy works. It operates in the region of knowledge, humility, wisdom, and give and take philosophy. It brings about a win-win situation. Unknowledgeable, rigid and arrogant leaders loathe diplomacy to the peril of themselves and their countries.
