The military coup in Niger is still evolving. The atmosphere in the country is unsettled. The leaders have dug into their trenches. There appears to be no solution to the apparent standoff between the coup leaders and leaders of the regional Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) who initially issued a deadline for the putschists to vacate the presidential throne. There are reports of a likely retaliatory military strike by Russia or any other outside force or group in response to possible external intervention in Niger. The situation is not clear.
There is also lack of clarity about factors that would likely compel Russia or the United States or France to intervene militarily in Niger, if they ever would. While talks of external interference remain speculative, the situation on the ground in Niger remains fuzzy. In essence, anything is possible. Things are moving very fast in the country.
There are so many interests at stake in Niger. There are regional security and anti-terrorism intelligence sharing arrangements that could be disrupted and there are also economic, diplomatic, energy (i.e., oil and gas) agreements, natural resources, and other infrastructural collaborations that could be upset by an outside intervention in Niger. These issues must be carefully weighed and considered by all stakeholders, including ECOWAS leaders. Interference in Niger will have dire consequences that will reverberate beyond the country and across the ECOWAS region. Nigeria also faces serious existential threats from terror groups, and could easily become the centre of violence and terrorism in the ECOWAS region, making the current insecurity in Nigeria more deadly and complex.
While it is easy for anyone to see military intervention as a ready option, such a route portends dangers. In the current global environment, there are complicated alliances, partnerships, treaties, and ties that may not be known to outside forces. This lack of knowledge of Niger’s capacity to defend itself in the event of external aggression or the readiness of other countries to step in to defend Niger could make projections of the ease of military intervention as inaccurate as the idea that Niger has a small and weak military force that could fall within days of the outbreak of hostilities. Never underestimate your enemy or ally.
The ongoing and protracted conflict between Russia and Ukraine should have taught the world a lesson about the dangers of miscalculating the strength and preparedness of a country’s military force, defence alliances, and infrastructure. Before the onset of that conflict, Russian officials had predicted proudly that Ukraine would fall within weeks and months of the start of the war. But that did not happen. More than one year into the conflict, the Ukrainian forces appear to be holding their ground against destructive strikes by Russian forces. Quite simply, Russia has not been able to overwhelm Ukraine as was predicted before the start of the war. This means that nothing comes easy in warfare.
Different views exist on the fundamental causes of conflicts in human societies. Some people believe that conflict is entrenched in human nature and human societies. For example, Dutch academic and author of many communication articles and monographs, Cees J. Hamelink, said: “The essence of living is conflict. Conflict between life and death. Conflict between who we are and who we would want to be. Conflict between expectations and realities.”
The literature on conflict and war suggests that conflicts arise when human beings disagree over how to allocate limited resources or when people disagree over how to achieve their objectives. Indeed, conflict has been described as “a situation where two or more individuals or groups try to pursue goals or ambitions which they believe they cannot share.”
Endless conflicts in parts of Africa have generated questions about the causes of conflicts on the continent. Why are conflicts more widespread inside African countries and between African countries than elsewhere? Opinions are divided.
There is palpable fear in Nigeria about the likely deleterious consequences of the country leading an ECOWAS military force to invade Niger, considering the existing atmosphere of insecurity, banditry, and kidnapping that has disrupted Nigeria’s economy and worsened the socioeconomic conditions of citizens. Various groups have cautioned President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to refrain from launching an unprovoked war on neighbouring Niger. The Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), for example, said emphatically that Tinubu should explore diplomatic channels of restoring democracy in Niger rather than take the war option. The NGE’s position is in accord with public opinion in Nigeria.
The NGE said in a statement that Tinubu, in his capacity as chairperson of ECOWAS, should persuade other ECOWAS member countries to use diplomatic networks to resolve the provocative military takeover of the government in Niger.
The military overthrow of the democratic government in Niger may have come so swiftly and unexpectedly but there were clear signs on the horizon days and weeks before the event. Western countries such as the United States and France were said to have been informed of the impending military coup in Niger. Only diplomats within the countries who are well informed would be able to confirm or dismiss such statements. If the US and France were aware, what did they do to avert the danger of military interference in the politics in Niger?
Within Nigeria, some northern states have indicated their opposition to the planned military intervention by ECOWAS. Those states view themselves as potentially direct victims of the outcomes of external intervention. Those northern states believe that violent reaction by Nigerien military to any outside interference in their country could spread rapidly to Nigerian neighbouring states and cities. That is a genuine worry. It is unthinkable that a country such as Nigeria that has its forces distracted by violent groups and pockets of militants such as the Boko Haram terrorist group, bandits and kidnappers that have led to unprecedented breaches of Nigeria’s internal security apparatus, as well as the breakdown of law and order, could invite a major war on its borders. No country wants war, particularly a war that has no beginning and no end.
While public opinion in Nigeria is divided, the prevailing view is that a potential war with Niger is unjustified, unnecessary and needless. There is no basis to engage Niger in a war. The question is whether Tinubu and his advisers are listening and willing to save the country the hardships that a war with Niger is most likely going to impose on ordinary citizens. The situation in Niger will test the patience, temperament, and diplomatic skills of the Tinubu government and its willingness to demonstrate practical leadership of the regional ECOWAS bloc.
In trying to resolve the impasse in Niger, the options available to ECOWAS leaders represent the devil’s alternative. Whatever those leaders do, the likely consequence is that men, women, children, and the elderly are likely to die. It is a painful dilemma. It is like considering how to offer wine in a breakable glass cup to a monkey settled on a tree branch. While it may be easy to offer the drink effortlessly to the monkey, the greater problem is how to retrieve the glass cup safely from the monkey.
While it is no longer fashionable in any part of the world for the military to intervene in politics in any country, the world is still grappling with how to deal with the possibility of that scenario should it ever occur, as the situation that exists now in Niger. We cannot pretend the danger does not exist. It exists. It is real. And it is fundamental to how global leaders would relate with emerging military juntas anywhere in the world.