Implications of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso's Withdrawal from ECOWAS

Established in 1975, the Commission of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) aimed to promote “economic integration,” improve security, and foster regional cooperation to counter common threats to peace and political stability in the region. The bloc included 15 signatory countries. For many years, the region was afflicted by the uprising of extremist groups such as Boko Haram, Islamic State, and other minor non-state actors. Moreover, the vast majority of the population is living in abject poverty (less than one dollar per day) due to corruption and economic downturn. This prompted the military officers to topple the civilian governments in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea through coups and counter-coups. 

After a diplomatic impasse with the junta officers and ECOWAS delegation, the bloc, under the leadership of President Bola Tinubu, threatened to take economic and military action. While military action was just rhetoric, the countries faced significant economic sanctions. These sanctions restricted intra-border trades that plunged millions of people out of business and shortages of food and medical supplies. The junta-led regimes argued in their joint statement that they had taken a “sovereign decision” to quit the bloc because they were tired of failed promises to contain the insurgency and corruption in their countries. They also alleged that the coalition was under the influence of foreign superpowers, which for the junta officers, is a flagrant violation of the founding documents that shaped the economic and political postures in the region. Consequently, the junta regimes created the Alliance of Sahel States (ASS), an adamant move that underscored their unwavering resolution to pursue their aspirations somewhere. Therefore, the region's future fight against corruption, insurgency, and political instability rested on a fragile foundation. 

When the junta regimes in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso toppled the democratically elected governments, their primary argument was that the civilian government had failed to tackle the country's endless war against insecurity and rampant corruption. This rhetoric of combating insecurity and corruption had garnered support from their citizens, making every ECOWAS move to assert its influence challenging. As a result, the diplomatic impasse affects the region’s collective efforts in counterterrorism and fishing out trans-border crimes. It created a void in strategic cooperation, and sharing of classified intelligence, and also limited every established mechanism for fighting terrorism. 

Therefore, from every vantage point you look at the situation, as the world is coming together to fight common threats such as climate change and terrorism, it's a colossal drawback for the region’s collaborative efforts in fighting common dangers. This is why ECOWAS needed to employ astute diplomacy to find a common ground that would pave the way to reinstate democratic governance in the junta-led countries. 

The economic implications in the region cannot be overemphasized. It has already taken a huge toll on businesses. The intra-border trade volume (an “average of $208.1 billion”) had heavily reduced, plunging countless businesses into chaos. Again, it affected foreign direct investments (FDIs) and the ongoing multilateral infrastructure projects aimed at connecting the region’s economic and political integration. 

Politically, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso’s withdrawal from the ECOWAS had already affected diplomatic relations. As mentioned above, for instance, when there was a gap in sharing intelligence or restrictions on trade, it affected the region’s stabilization of democracy and economic growth. In the grand scheme of geopolitics, it portrayed a lackluster image that the ECOWAS is incapable of keeping its member states together, let alone strengthening democracy. For this reason, it's pertinent for the authorities and other critical stakeholders involved in this diplomatic impasse to devise a workable strategy that will keep the West African countries intact. Otherwise, the future of the region’s shared values and fight against common threats looks bleak.

 

In conclusion, ECOWAS was created over four decades to facilitate a seamless economic and political alliance between its 15 member states. Unfortunately, the region had been plagued by endless insecurity, rampant corruption, as well as economic stagnation that subjected millions to poverty. As a result, the region had seen multiple coups and counter-coups in a short period, which destabilized the region's economic and democratic cohesion. After a diplomatic impasse and gnawing sanctions, the junta-led countries jointly resigned their membership from the largest regional bloc. They accused the bloc of double standards and of being a foreign puppet that betrayed the founding principles of “Pan Africanism” on which the coalition was established in 1975. This decision has had a profound impact on the region’s security architecture, economic growth, and political stability. For this reason, the ECOWAS needed to address the situation swiftly before it got out of grasp. The authorities involved should diplomatically seek a new way forward to restore peace and prosperity in the region. Indeed, the coming weeks or months will be crucial and will determine if ECOWAS is still powerful enough to influence the region’s economic and political affairs.