Why Nigeria Should Not Go To War With Niger

John G. Stoessinger, the famous political analyst and author of his book ‘Why Nations Go to War’, emphasises the role of political and military leaders in taking their nations to war.

In conventional terms, the political or military leaders decide whether the nation goes to war or not. The buck stops at their table; hence, leaders should take optimum precautions before fighting to not plunge their countries into needless cataclysm.

Stoessinger’s assessment of the theory and practice of war is also predicated on what a nation can gain by going to war. In his analysis of the continuous, nay incessant Arab – Israel war in the Middle East, Stoessinger described the leadership decisions of the Arab and Israeli leaders as a zero-sum game which these leaders use to make war attractive and draw their nations into conflict, which most times is not necessary.

The decisions to go to war do not usually go according to plan as they don’t achieve the desired political or economic outcomes. A war is like a closed keg of gunpowder. Don’t open it unless you must because if you do, the powder spills and everybody gets some drops on their bodies.

There is never a winner in a war, as all gladiators will, in the end, count their losses no matter how minimal. All gladiators fall on the losing side at the end of a war.

The current scenario of a possible war between Nigeria (leading the ECOWAS forces) and the Niger Republic can be described as a zero–sum game because any gains by Nigeria will be cancelled out by the losses of the Niger Republic and vice versa. Come to think of it, the Niger Republic is more or less an extension of Northern Nigeria, not less the other way around.

These two identical parts of Africa are brothers intrinsically tied together by blood, marriage, religion, tradition, trade and tribe. Any attack on the Niger Republic could be construed as an attack on northern Nigeria. This is the reason behind the continuing diplomatic shuttles by prominent northerners in Nigeria, traditional rulers, Islamic clerics and notable elders and politicians to stop any attacks on the Niger Republic by Nigeria and its allies in ECOWAS with the Western powers lurking behind the scene and waiting in ambush. Indeed, we shouldn’t forget how France supported Biafra, who fought unsuccessfully to dismember Nigeria, leading to the civil war between 1967-1970.

The North is understandably edgy and disturbed by the potential war between Nigeria and the Niger Republic. Even before the first shot is fired, the North is already counting huge losses; the economy of the region is on a downward spiral, and Nigerian communities, particularly those along the borders with the Niger Republic and who have been terrorised sufficiently by bandits and terrorists, are becoming more edgy.

The losses in trade and commerce in the unlikely event of a breakout of hostilities between the two sister nations could be devastating. So far, traders, mainly from Northern Nigeria, are reportedly losing billions of Naira weekly due to the closure of the border with the Niger Republic. The Arewa economic forum (AEF) says that traders from Northern Nigeria are losing N13 billion weekly due to the Nigeria – Niger border closure. This is just as over 2,000 containers carrying perishable food items and coming into Nigeria through the wall with the Niger Republic are trapped, and the products are lost.

Equally, the Centre for the Promotion of public enterprise (CPPE) estimates that Nigeria could lose $2 billion annually in trade in the event of any military intervention in the Niger Republic.

Recall that the closure of the Nigeria – Niger border was part of the strategic nay daydreaming efforts by the Nigerian government to force the Niger junta to hand over power back to the ousted President Mohammed Bazoum.

Is military intervention in the Niger Republic really worth it?

1989- 1997, Nigeria spent $8 billion as the sponsor-in-chief of the Liberian war, but what did the country gain from it? Nothing but the loss of hundreds of our gallant soldiers.

Why should Nigeria go to war with Niger Republic when ragtag bandits and terrorists have held our country, especially the Northern part of Nigeria, to ransom and have not been subdued by our military?

Going to war with the Niger Republic will amount to overstretching our military, who are already fighting an unconventional war with bandits and terrorists in Northern Nigeria, some of whom are nationals of the Niger Republic. In fact, it is doubtful if the Nigerian military can defeat that of the Niger Republic when juxtaposed with the fact that our soldiers have not been able to smoke out and finally decimate Boko haram, bandits and terrorists in the North, IPOB/ESN terrorists who have turned the South East into a war zone, Niger Delta economic terrorists who are stealing Nigeria’s oil and have done so much damage to Nigeria’s oil infrastructure.

Suppose the Nigerian military cannot defeat bandits and common criminals in its backyard. How can we be confident that they (our military) can beat a conventional army in far away Niger Republic? The Boko haram war has been going on in Nigeria for 14 years.

This is not to say that our gallant soldiers are not doing anything about Nigeria’s current insecurity rate. They are doing a lot; we appreciate what they are doing because, without our brave military, the situation could have been worse than it is today. Many of our servicemen and women have paid the Supreme price to defend us. May their souls rest in peace, Amin

The political consequences of the break up of war between Nigeria and Niger Republic could be dire. For one, President Tinubu’s second term agenda will be in jeopardy if Nigeria goes to war with Niger Republic because it will be challenging to get the Northern voters to buy in and support Tinubu in 2027. The North is currently under siege from bandits and terrorists; hence any war with the Niger Republic will only add to the misfortunes of the already traumatised Northern region.

War is not a tea party or a coffee-sipping event but a severe and sensitive issue. It must be a last resort and should only be on the table if all diplomatic measures have failed. In the case under reference, there is no need to place war as an option. All that is required from the Tinubu administration is to continue applying diplomatic pressure through talks, dialogue and negotiations until the Niger military junta releases a realistic transition timetable for restoring democracy in that country.

To continue calling for Bazoum’s reinstatement as President of the Niger Republic will amount to begging the question. One has to believe that the camel can pass through the eye of the needle to think that the military will ever transfer power back to Bazoum.

The Tinubu administration should, as a matter of urgency, open up the border and restore the electricity supply to the Niger Republic.

At the end of the day, it is the poor man on the street that bears the brunt. We should not be unmindful that the Kainji Dam, the primary source of electricity in Nigeria, passes through the Niger Republic.

The decision to draw the line between war and peace is difficult for a nation, especially when certain conditions are not satisfied. Key among such situations is the threat to a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Another is when a nation’s economic or political interests are at stake. None of these conditions is at stake for Nigeria to justify war with the Niger Republic.

Why Nigeria Should Not Go To War With Niger

The only issue driving Nigeria towards a possible war with the Niger Republic is alleged to be pressure from France and other Western powers. From all indications, France, a significant slave–master to Niger republic, is not ready to lose Niger as it did Mali, Guinea and Burkina Faso, which have fallen into the hands of military putschists and crusaders who have vowed to ‘take their country back. Mali and Burkina Faso declared that any attack on the Niger Republic is an attack on them. The coming into action by these countries in the event of war could heighten the stakes and further destabilise the West African sub-region.

THE DOMINO EFFECT 

The fear of a domino effect could be one of the reasons why the ECOWAS, led by Nigeria, is hellbent on going to war with the Niger Republic. If the coup in the Niger Republic is allowed to succeed, it could encourage other wannabe coup plotters in West African countries, including Nigeria, to do a copycat of the coup in the Niger Republic.

France is the primary beneficiary of the Niger Republic’s massive Uranium deposits and will always want to be in control to avoid the Niger Republic falling into the hands of its (France’s) enemies.

The U.S., Britain and their allies will also not be happy to see the Niger Republic slipping away. Remember that Russia is on the sidelines, waiting to form alliances with Africa to checkmate the seeming monopoly of America and Europe in Africa. In fact, Russia has opposed any military action against Niger’s junta and even extended an olive branch to the Niger Republic and other African countries for security and economic cooperation.

The only silent voice is that of China, which controls the Niger Republic’s oil reserves, but China has remained mute and has yet to publicly take sides in the current debate on Niger’s coup quagmire.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

A realistic assessment of facts will reveal that a Nigeria-Niger war is not likely. This is because President Tinubu cannot unilaterally declare war and/or deploy troops to invade any country without the consent of the Nigerian legislature, the two chambers of the National Assembly viz Senate and the House of Representatives sitting in a joint session. The constitution’s position, the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), is apparent in deploying troops outside Nigeria.

Section 4(a)(b)  of the CFRN 1999 (as amended) is clear, explicit and unambiguous that:

4. (a) the President shall not declare a state of war between the Federation and another country except with the sanction of a resolution of both Houses of the National Assembly, sitting in a joint session; and

(b) except with the prior approval of the Senate, no member of the Federation’s armed forces shall be deployed on combat duty outside Nigeria.

Although section 4 forecloses any window for the President to unilaterally declare war with another country without the consent of the National Assembly, section 5 offers a short window for the President to deploy troops to another country in consultation with the national defence council (NDC) but with the condition that Nigeria’s national security is under imminent and real threat. Even in this window, the President must seek the consent of the Senate within 7 days of actual combat, and the Senate may give or refuse such consent. In fact, section 4(b) is clear that no member of the Nigerian armed forces shall be deployed outside Nigeria without the permission of the Senate.

Clearly, it is difficult and possibly impossible for President Tinubu to secure the consent of the Senate and the House of Representatives to go to war with the Niger Republic.

In light of the Senate’s objection on 6/8/23 to President Tinubu’s request to deploy troops to Niger Republic ‘to restore democracy’, it can be concluded that even if the President represents any request to the Senate for military intervention in Niger Republic, such request cannot scale the hurdle at the Senate and House of Representatives.

Recall that the Senate has rejected President Tinubu’s request to deploy troops to the Niger Republic on 6th August 2023.

A WORD FOR THE PUTSCHISTS

The military junta in the Niger Republic should understand that a coup is an aberration. The current world order promotes democracy and the rule of law. Any country that employs martial law and military dictatorship or uses the barrel of a gun to capture power at the expense of constitutional democracy and the elected government will be soundly rejected, sidelined and isolated from the global family.

To this end, General Abdourahamane Tchiani-led junta must, as a matter of urgency, return Niger Republic to democracy and constitutional order within 16 months. In this regard, the committee should release a timetable for a return to civilian rule with a handover date of 1st January 2025. The military junta should remember what happened to Samuel Doe of Liberia and Charles Taylor of the same country, just to mention a few.

In conclusion, The current efforts by ECOWAS against the military junta in the Niger Republic can be understood if are meant to pile up pressure on the committee to move faster and return the landlocked nation to civilian rule. However, such efforts should not be upgraded to military intervention due to the dire consequences a war will have on both countries.

What is required now is for the Tinubu administration and the ECOWAS to step up efforts and get Niger Republic’s military junta to release a realistic timetable for the republic’s return to civilian rule with a handover date on or before 1st January 2025.

A war cannot achieve what peace cannot.

–Dr Alkali is a petroleum engineer and public policy analyst