With the decision of the three Sahelian states of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger to exit the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the leadership of the three states insisting that they do not intend to go back on their decisions, West Africa appears to have found itself in a political fix that has severe consequences for the regional body and for the exiting states.
Mali’s leadership has insisted that its decision is irreversible. In a scathing note to the regional body, Bamako said it decision was in response to harsh sanctions imposed by the body on the country in January 2022, which it described as “contrary to the fundamental texts of the organisation and international law.” The closure of borders and the freezing of Mali’s assets are described as “serious breaches” which render the ECOWAS Treaty “inoperative”.
This position is also held by the military leaderships in Burkina Faso and Niger. The junta in Burkina Faso, in a recent statement, made known its refusal of the organisation’s diktat, reaffirming its decision to leave ECOWAS without delay and rejecting the one-year deadline imposed by the organisation.
In a note of protest to ECOWAS, the Burkinabè government denounced the flagrant violations of the fundamental texts of the organisation by ECOWAS. It particularly criticised what it described as “the illegal and inhumane economic sanctions” imposed on Mali and itself, as well as the regional body’s constant interference in the internal affairs of member countries.
“For Ouagadougou, the attitude of ECOWAS is unacceptable and incompatible with the ideals of integration and solidarity which founded the organization”, it said.
The Nigerièn military junta, on its part, had taken ECOWAS to court, contesting the sanctions imposed by the organisation. in its ruling, the ECOWAS court held that the application was inadmissible, stating that the applicants- including a government instituted by a coup- did not have standing to make a case on Niger.
ECOWAS insists that the trio’s exit is not recognised without a one-year notice issued to the body, as stipulated in its founding charter. The charter specifies that “any Member State wishing to withdraw from the Community shall give to the Executive Secretary one year’s notice in writing who shall inform the Member States thereof. At the expiration of this period, if such notice is not withdrawn, such a State shall cease to be a member of the Community.”
The military leadership of the three countries reject this, insisting that they have the legitimate right, guaranteed by their sovereignty, to exit the organisation without recourse to any document as they believe the organisation has carried out acts against the treaty signed in 1975.
At the just-concluded extraordinary session of the Mediation and Security Council (MSC) of the ECOWAS The President of the ECOWAS Commission, Omar Aliou Touray touched on an important subject that has been raised by regional political observers, and that is the need to weigh the implications of the withdrawal.
Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Chair of the MSC, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, said “the decision of Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mail to withdraw from the community has presented yet another challenge, however, members are heartened by the spirit of cooperation to resolve this challenge that upholds the values of the community.”
While Touray stresses that the three countries have not carefully considered the implications of their withdrawal, nor the conditions provided for in the ECOWAS treaty, he appeared to have glossed over the need for the commission to also weigh the implications on the organisation’s integrative process as well.
On the social front, a reflection on the negative impacts for populations must be considered, regional political watchers caution.
As Tuggar noted; “The choice of these three countries to exit ECOWAS would not only bring hardship to their people but also undermine regional integration efforts.”
Currently, large populations of diverse nationalities have established themselves as migrant communities within the ECOWAS region as a result of the organisation’s protocol on the free movement of people across the borders of member-states.
An example of the immense task that governments of the 15 member-states would face in addressing the migration issue presents itself in the deep ethnic ties that exist between Nigeria and Niger Republic.
Nigeria maintains close relations with the Republic of Niger, in part because both nations share a large Hausa minority on each side of their 1,500 km (930 mi) border. Hausa language and cultural ties are strong, and this is further strengthened by the ECOWAS free movement protocol.
Touray also fails to mention, they say, the heavy economic sanctions imposed by ECOWAS, which have had a devastating impact on such close interactions between civilian populations.
One of the areas regional political watchers say would suffer the most from the exit is security. The region is already dealing with a major Islamist insurgency that has infiltrated most member-states. This, ironically, has been cited as the reason for the military takeovers in the three Sahelian states. So far, efforts to eradicate the different terror groups have seen measured successes, even with the establishment of several joint military operations.
Security experts say the exit of these countries would further complicate the situation as cooperation between affected countries may be subject to new rules that could see less cooperation between state security agencies.
On the political front, commentators say it is imperative for the regional body to open discussions on the legitimacy of its direct interference in the internal political structures of its member-states, since this was not a part of the principles which guided the establishment of the body.
Political watchers say Touray’s statements at the MSC meeting ignores the fact that these countries have repeatedly expressed their frustration with the organisation’s constant interference in their internal affairs.
This is one of the major issues raised by the military leaderships in these countries as proof that external influences on the functions of the organisation are shaping its approach to political events.
Many have proposed that any intervention by the regional body in the political developments within member-states should be determined by a transparent and unbiased assessment of popular opinions in the affected states. They say this would ensure such interventions are not impositions by external forces and also would be in the true spirit of the principles that guide the “ECOWAS of People” concept.
The Economic realities that the exit of the three countries signify have been described as dire by many who feel that the meagre financial contributions of these countries erase any serious economic impact on the organisation. Some analysts say withdrawing from ECOWAS may amount to the countries condemning themselves to economic isolation.
This is a reality the three countries must consider, economists say. The ECOWAS has a $702 billion GDP with trade and services flow worth $150 billion. The economies of the three countries account for just 8% of ECOWAS GDP,
Another consideration is the potential hike in transportation costs that the countries would have to come to terms with. These are landlocked countries that depend on infrastructure in neighbouring countries to trade with the rest of the world. Exiting an organisation that provides special concessions for the movement of their resources, many say, may not be the smartest move.
The exit would also have an impact on commodity prices if the three countries continue to transport their goods through other ECOWAS member countries, and they may find themselves in extreme economic isolation, some analysts warn.
There are others who insist that the huge resource potentials of these countries are vital to the organisation if the right governance structures are in place. There are also signs that the countries are already opening up alternative routes for shipment.
A recent report said Niger was already working on cooperation with Libya, to use the Libyan port of Torbruk to open up goods by train to the 3 AES countries and gain 15 days at sea on their neighbours, passing through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal from Russia and China, rather than bypassing Africa.
Mali and Burkina Faso have already started ramping up efforts to increase gold production and refining for greater value of exports. This, some analysts say, would increase the contribution of these states to regional GDP.
Niger, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is expected to go from 4.1% growth in 2023 to more than 11%, which risks beating all growth rates on the African continent in 2024.
The huge mineral reserves of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger leads many economists to warn that their withdrawal from ECOWAS would have a “very negative impact” on the economic growth of the sub-region. Moody’s Rating Agency, a company specialising in risk management solutions and financial analysis of commercial companies or government bodies, believes this as well.
The agency estimates that the withdrawal of the three countries could disrupt trade flows and those of services in the sub-region. This decision could also weigh on business confidence, potentially hindering economic growth in ECOWAS.
Their position in the Sahel means they could create both physical and bureaucratic barrier to trade between ECOWAS member-states and the Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco, Libya and Tunisia), some analysts say.
It says the situation could get even worse if the trio also decides to leave the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), a sub-economic bloc within the ECOWAS region, which has had an average growth rate of six percent. Members also have access to debt on favourable terms via the regional financial market.
This monetary union also cut off these countries’ access to the regional financial market, and the regional central bank following decisions by ECOWAS leaders after the coups in Mali and Niger. It has since restored Mali’s access, but Niger remains suspended.
It is believed that ECOWAS would go to great lengths to keep its membership intact. However, this would require concessions on its part that would address some of the concerns raised by the military leaderships of the three Sahel states.
Some other observers believe ECOWAS’s more likely approach is to stay the course and hope that the three countries will reconsider their membership down the line, evaluating the potential economic, social and political losses that an exit would bring.
Tuggar’s insistence on carrying forward efforts to engage with the concerned member states in what he calls “the spirit of understanding and reconciliation” underscores the organisation’s willingness to continue negotiations on an optimistic note, some political analysts say.
