Why is ECOWAS itching to invade Niger?

When the Igbo said, “When a coward sees a man he can beat, he becomes hungry for a fight,” little did they know, it would mean ECOWAS on Niger. Following the deposing of Mohamed Bazoum by his protection unit, ECOWAS has been itching to invade Niger to return him to power.

The practicality and modalities of carrying out such a daring violation of sovereignty, remains a mystery of mysteries, even to the most seasoned strategic thinkers. However, from the very day the events unfolded, ECOWAS Chair and President of Nigeria, Bola Tinubu threated to employ coercive instruments against Niger.

Just like the rest of the sane world, Nigerians were utterly shocked at President Tinubu’s over-exuberance on the Niger crisis. His lust for blood, was not only trashed by his Senate, but by the Nigerian population, who even at this present moment, are appalled by Tinubu’s electricity cut to Niger.

Many Nigerians, especially those from the North, who share strong ethnic, economic and cultural ties with Niger, have criticised President Tinubu for seeking the West’s affirmation at the behest of Niger.

With egg on its face, ECOWAS has backtracked to where it should have started; diplomacy. Although the regional bloc continues to pronounce that all options are on the table, it is just a sabre-rattling to save face. The implications of an unnecessary armed conflict in the already volatile Sahel, would be profound to say the least.

As things stand, ECOWAS is very divided, it is only a minority voice, amplified by Western mainstream media, that are calling for war. The Burkina Faso and Mali military juntas, have lauded the coup and pronounced military support for Niger, if need be.

This clearly raises the prospects of major regional conflict and therefore, negates the view that the use of force can anyhow be a solution to this crisis. The first mistake that ECOWAS made, was to pre-empt open and candid dialogue with threats of violence.

The second mistake was their total misreading of the regional political mood. The third mistake was their total misreading of the putschists’ popular support in Niger. The mistake they are now making, is to think ‘gun-diplomacy’ would somehow work.

The reality is, these mistakes, have emboldened the putschists. The other reality is that power has evolved beyond Bazoum. The sad reality is that ECOWAS is negotiating the past.

As to exactly how ECOWAS intends to re-install Bazoum remains to be seen. Assuming the military option succeeds and the putschists are defeated, what happens next? Do they put Bazoum back to state house and ECOWAS troops stay there for the rest of his remaining term of office, or what happens?

How do they reconfigure the people to support him? It remains more than a political puzzle, as to how they intend to go about it. Worse off, they have not bothered to explain. The fact is, ECOWAS cannot pretend to be ignorant of the political and security realities of Niger. The obvious being that, Bazoum has always been the rabbit that went hunting with the hounds.

Since taking office, military takeover has been hanging over his head. It is therefore, not surprising. It is therefore, peculiar that, following Bazoum’s ouster, ECOWAS wants to make Niger’s crisis, a discovery. They suddenly want to play surprised or being caught flat-footed.

But the undisputed reality is that, Niger is not the only country in West Africa to have experienced coups in the past few months. Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea (Conakry) have all had their fair share of coups. Did ECOWAS intervene or threatened the use of force against these military juntas; the answer is obvious.

The question then is, what is different about Niger and who is sponsoring the war agenda? The reality that, Niger has suddenly become a top news item in the Western media, is a clue to the answer. Needless to say, a day into the coup, an op-ed purporting to have been written by Bazoum, appeared in one of America’s leading newspaper; The Washington Post.

The opinion piece was nothing more than a ‘clarion call’ by ‘Bazoum’ to the West to defend ‘democracy’ against diabolical Russian influence in the Sahel. Although there is so far, no evidence of Russian influence in the Niger crisis, it is political convenient for the author to cite it, as source of Niger’s calamities.

It is clear that the author was not interested in stating facts, but rather in emotionally extorting his Western audience. As things stand, there is absolutely nothing calling for ECOWAS’ military intervention in Niger, unless for ‘mercenary’ reasons.