At the December summit of the Authority of Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in Abuja, Nigeria, the uncertainties surrounding the eventual exit of the three military ruled Sahel states, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger Republic, were palpable. There were intense deliberations over the economic and political implications of the move, with leaders calling for caution and further reconsideration of the decision in order to preserve the almost 50-year-old Union.
As January 29, the date for the final exit, approaches, the Sahel trio, who are moving ahead with their newly formed Alliance of Sahel States (AES), recently upgraded to a Confederation, insist that their decision is final and it followed their recent adoption of a number of clear positions regarding their plan to leave the regional body.
On January 26, the foreign ministers of the Confederation of Sahel States (AES), met in Ouagadougou, the Burkinabé capital, for a crucial meeting to harmonise the positions of the three states in their final negotiations with ECOWAS concerning their definitive withdrawal.
The high-level meeting marks a decisive step in the separation process between the three states and ECOWAS, initiated by the joint announcement in January 2024. The foreign ministers, Karamoko Jean Marie Traoré (Burkina Faso), Abdoulaye Diop (Mali) and Bakary Yaou Sangaré (Niger), met to coordinate a common strategy and discuss the practical modalities of the withdrawal.
Many observers have called for an approach to the exit that would consider mitigating the potential economic and social repercussions for their populations.
This consideration may have inspired the discussions in Ouagadougou. According to the declarations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burkina Faso, Traoré, this “consultation framework is part of the desire of our leaders to assert their sovereignty, while minimising the impacts of withdrawal in order to guarantee the well-being of the populations and socio-economic development of our countries.
Making concessions to maintain cordial relations
On December 14th, 2024, the President of the confederation of AES, and head of Mali’s military government, Assimi Goïta, on behalf of his other two colleagues, Burkina Faso’s Captain Ibrahim Traoré and Niger’s General Abdourahamane Tchiani, stated in a press release that the Confederation of Sahel States is a visa-free area for all nationals of the member states of ECOWAS.
He added that nationals of all states within the regional body would have the right to enter, move around, reside, settle and leave the territory of the member states of the Confederation of Sahel States in compliance with the national texts in force.
However, they stated, the Member States of the Confederation reserve the right, in accordance with their laws and regulations, to refuse entry into their territories to any ECOWAS national falling into the category of inadmissible immigrants.
Within the context of their respect for free movement, they announced that private and commercial vehicles registered in the territory of an ECOWAS Member State may enter the territory of a Member State of the Confederation in accordance with the texts in force.
These guidelines expressing the willingness to maintain cordial relations with their neighbours have been welcomed by regional observers who say that such steps would help maintain stability and drive regional economic momentum.
However, there are many who say these steps will not be sufficient for the region to exploit the huge economic potentials that the integrative structure provided by ECOWAS would have made possible.
A setback for the ECOWAS single market
What the AES has done, some opine, is not only cut the geographical space of the regional body by removing a surface area of over 2.7M square kilometres, bigger than all the 12 countries of ECOWAS combined, with only 70 million people, ECOWAS also loses out on gains from huge mining investments. The regional body’s economic clout as a key gold mining hub reduces significantly with the exit of Mali and Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso holds gold resources worth around $6 billion per year, making it the 13th-largest gold producer in the world, while Mali is estimated to have 800 tons of gold deposits.
To absorb the economic shock that would emerge from the exit, the meeting of the AES ministers in Ouagadougou has outlined major Projects that the Confederation will embark upon to provide a strong foundation for economic growth. These include a common AES Airline and Railway to connect all three countries.
They have also drawn up plans to establish a regional bank, which could become the Central Bank of the confederation as plans for a new currency advance. Plans have been drawn up for a common market and a major infrastructural drive with the construction of an interstate highway system, totalling 1,446km to connect Niamey-Tera-Dori-Kaya-Ouagadougou-Bobo Dioulasso-Orodara-Sikasso-Bougouni-Bamako.
As the three Sahel states explore opportunities for strategic partnerships beyond the borders of ECOWAS, their global engagement strategies are likely evolving. The standoff between the regional body and the three states reflects an opposition of visions on regional governance and sovereignty.
As tensions continue to escalate, leaving little room for compromise, these countries may be seeking to diversify their alliances and enhance their presence on the international stage by forming partnerships with nations or organisations that align more closely with their current priorities and objectives. Their strategic alliances, notably with Russia, is a major shift from traditional external partners.
Sovereignty and autonomy concerns have been central to the decision of these countries to reconsider their ties with ECOWAS. Preserving national interests and asserting independence in decision-making processes have become paramount in their foreign policy agendas.
There were several reasons for the position the three states adopted. They include the ineffectiveness of regional response to security challenges, ECOWAS’ lack of solidarity in the face of the terrorist threat, and the counter-productivity of the economic sanctions imposed on the them. The threat of military intervention, following the military coup in Niger, triggered a stance of preventive solidarity on the part of the three states with the creation of the AES, raising prospects of a re-shaping of the regional map.
Rekindling anti-colonial sentiments
Their stance appears driven by ideology too. The AES has shaped itself as an anti-colonial alliance, and there are germane political arguments for that. A report published by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation says the reasons given by the outgoing States for their decision to exit shed light on their regional minimalist stance, evident in their “perception that ECOWAS is moving away from the “pan-African ideals of its founding fathers; the perceived influence of foreign powers hostile to ECOWAS; a feeling of abandonment by ECOWAS in the fight against terrorism; and the ‘illegal, illegitimate, inhumane, and irresponsible” sanctions imposed by ECOWAS.’”
Protecting their brand of Pan-Africanist identities and promoting national unity have become key priorities, potentially diverging from the objectives of ECOWAS, which they say is duplicating European policies and imposing alien solutions on distinctly domestic social challenges.
The popularity of this position was witnessed recently at the inauguration of Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, where the Burkinabe military leader, Captain Ibrahim Traore, received a rousing welcome when he mounted the stage to congratulate the newly sworn-in president.
Some also believe that heightened calls by several West African state leadership for the exit of French forces may have been spurred by the evictions of French troops from the Sahel states. Pundits say this action pushed other governments to take the same steps, fearing the ripple effects of the anti-French sentiments within their own borders.
Tough challenges ahead
Beyond its anti-colonial and Pan-Africanist posture, however, the AES will have to contend with serious economic challenges and social decline that it would need both regional and foreign partners to confront, and ECOWAS Commission has consistently sounded this warning to the leaders of the alliance.
In Niger, for example, Many believe that the antics of the military leadership is detached from the reality on the ground. They say it may not really express the views of the Nigerièn people, who have had longstanding trade relations with Nigeria and it shows no understanding of politics and international relations.
Regardless of Niger’s current stance towards Nigeria, the Sahelian state cannot do without its big neighbour to the south, which is the leading economic power in Africa, with whom it shares a 1500km border, some economic analysts have said.
According to a report by Nina Kurt, published by West African Network for Peace (WANEP), The case of Mauritania’s incentives to rectify its “adverse decision to exit ECOWAS should serve as a specimen or a warning for the future economic challenges Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger could face.”
The report adds that “Due to their dependence on imported goods from the Gulf of Guinea, opting out of the ECOWAS’ free movement protocol will raise import and export expenses, decrease these states’ market competitiveness and negatively affect free movement of people and migration routes.”
With their resources and extensive geographical area, these countries are giving up special trade privileges granted them as a result of their ECOWAS membership. Their unprecedented exit from ECOWAS is unlikely to be simple. Agencies based in the three countries will have to move, as will civil servants. Trade relations and travel permissions will also change. They would also have to renegotiate terms with littoral states, for access to the coast.
Except negotiations address these issues, the withdrawal could mean that the citizens of those countries will not be able to directly benefit from ECOWAS’ increasing capacity in many sectors, such as public health, gender policy, energy and infrastructure, free movement of people, human development and social affairs.
An example is the West African Health Organization (WAHO), the health institution of ECOWAS, which is headquartered in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, and considered a capable first responder to public health crises in the region. The exit may significantly affect WAHO’s operations.
Even with the formation of a military alliance, and a recent announcement of the creation of a joint force of five thousand troops to combat insecurity in the Sahel, the three states are pulling out of a larger security network that includes far more equipped armed forces. They however insist that their new alliance provides better security guarantees than ECOWAS ever offered as they dealt with equal, if not worse, insecurity under the regional body whose efforts did not help in addressing their challenges.
In spite of these claims, ECOWAS has been a crucial player in managing various political crises and conflicts among its member states as well as consolidating peace and democracy through the adoption of the Protocol relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security in 1999 and the Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance in 2001.
Although, terrorism is one of the most pressing issues in the Sahel area, the Sahelian states are especially in danger, as they are the epicentre of terrorist activities and humanitarian crisis. Since the military coups, acts of terrorism has continued unabated. Data from the WANEP National Early Warning System, for example, shows that between January and August 2024, over 673 armed attacks were recorded across Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger during battles between state security forces and armed groups.
On this issue, the numbers may signify a different reality from suggestions of an escalating insurgency. increased military onslaught against insurgent positions is a major reason for the escalation.
As members of ECOWAS, the AES states are part of the multi-purpose ECOWAS Standby Force (ESF), composed of military, police and civilian staff of member states which is activated to intervene when required to restore peace and stability amid military coups and other challenges to national or regional security.
However, withdrawing from ECOWAS implies exit from collective security frameworks like the ESF as well. The isolationist policies of the three states have already seen them exit the G5 Sahel, an intergovernmental organisation created to promote development, counterterrorism and security.
The decision of the three Sahelian states to potentially leave ECOWAS underscores the multifaceted challenges and considerations facing these countries and the regional bloc as a whole. As these nations navigate issues related to politics, security, economics, sovereignty, and foreign policy, the future trajectory of ECOWAS and West Africa’s regional integration efforts remains uncertain.
The outcomes of these developments will shape the geopolitical landscape of the region and have far-reaching implications for cooperation and collaboration among member states. Only time will tell how these dynamics continue to unfold and impact the shared goals of peace, stability, and development in West Africa.
