Dr. Bakary Sambe, of the Timbuktu Institute, a think tank committed to the production of knowledge on peace, security and conflict resolution, has worked extensively on integration issues in West Africa. With the latest Ecowas Summit, where the departure of the countries of the Alliance of Sahel States (Aes) seems to have been decided, he looks back in this interview at the possibilities and alternatives in the face of this situation. 

  1. At the last Ecowas summit, the regional body decided to record the departure of the Aes countries, while asking Senegalese mediation to continue. Do you believe in the possibility of a reconciliation? 

As you know, this summit took place against a tense backdrop, and negotiations were already well underway in the region's diplomatic corridors. The Heads of State were aware of the immediate consequences of the planned application of article 91 of the 1993 revised ECOWAS treaty, with the grave risk of compromising not only decades of integration efforts, but also the regional security architecture in a context of unprecedented rise in the terrorist peril. There were two possible scenarios: A fait accompli with the withdrawal of the three ESA states from ECOWAS, with all its consequences, despite the possibility of mitigating the immediate effects (movement of people and goods) through regional cooperation frameworks and mechanisms such as WAEMU, of which Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger are still members. But the political and image consequences for ECOWAS would be far-reaching. The other option, of course, was to grant a delay in the form of a moratorium, which seems to have been the preferred outcome of the Summit. In any case, the guiding principle of preserving regional integration could still guide Senegal's position, given its status as a mediator, but also that of most of the ECOWAS driving states. The region needs stabilization efforts rather than disintegration factors, at a time when common security challenges alone call for a minimum of synergy both between ESA countries and between the various ECOWAS states. But what is reassuring from every point of view is that pan-Africanism and the safeguarding of regional integration now remain the two things best shared in ECOWAS and the countries of the ESA. And as the saying goes, those who can never part must necessarily walk together. While important from a symbolic point of view, the organization or form in which this shared awareness of the need for integration is materialized should in no way compromise the stakes involved in sealing a common destiny. Moreover, in the final communiqué issued at the end of last Sunday's summit, both in form and content, we sense the importance attached by ECOWAS to the fact of never prejudicing the diplomatic talks which must take their course.

  2. Alongside Senegal, there is also Togolese mediation. Are these two countries well placed to carry out this mediation?

There are obvious reasons for choosing these two countries. Togo enjoyed privileged relations with the ESA countries, even at the height of the crisis, when ECOWAS threatened military intervention in Niger. But Senegal's position as mediator in this crisis gives it a legitimacy reinforced by our country's diplomatic tradition, which has made dialogue and the search for peaceful solutions part of its foreign policy credo. Senegal naturally embodies this role, in line with its pan-Africanist commitment - the achievement of African unity is one of the missions of the President of the Republic, as recalled in his oath - but also its economic and strategic interests, and the importance of good neighborliness, notably with Mali, a pivotal country within the ESA. In addition to these considerations, there is also the need for close and ongoing security cooperation with Mali in view of the terrorist threat, as well as an economic partnership that is vital to both countries. It is true that, on the eve of the summit, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye spoke of encouraging progress. It has to be said that Senegal's mediation had already won a major battle in this long-term process of diplomacy. This mediation ratified a collective awareness on all sides of the need to safeguard the gains of sub-regional integration. In my opinion, it was this shared awareness that even encouraged the positive signals sent out by the ESA countries on the eve of the Summit, when they were keen to give assurances regarding freedom of movement within the regional area, which has become an achievement of the ECOWAS peoples beyond the sometimes tumultuous life of organizations and the turbulence of diplomatic relations.

 3. If the departure of the Aes countries is confirmed, won't the integration project be in serious jeopardy?

In itself, the creation of the Alliance of Sahel States through the Liptako Gourma Charter presaged a weakening of ECOWAS and the tacit disappearance of the G5 Sahel, which was a key player in the fight against terrorism in the Sahel and West Africa in general. It also presented risks of fragmentation of regional counter-terrorism efforts, and a negative impact on the AU's efforts by weakening its role insofar as this new initiative will further complicate its attempts to coordinate security efforts on a continental scale. If such a crisis becomes entrenched, it will further affect the AU's perception at continental and international level, where it had gained much with the Senegalese Chairmanship and the acquisition of a seat at the G20, not to mention the weakening of its continental coordination role in other areas beyond counter-terrorism and economic cooperation. Learning from the mistakes of the crisis with Niger, which precipitated the creation of the ESA, ECOWAS will have to integrate the fact that the current crisis is conjunctural and that the battle of opinion with the peoples of the region, whose destinies are linked by history and geography, should not be lost. This is perhaps the meaning of the reforms to which the Senegalese president seems to be committed, despite his efforts to pick up the pieces. In addition to the necessary reforms, the gamble to be taken is that of putting on a good show in asserting the desire to strengthen integration and not lose face with the peoples of the region, including those of the ESA countries.

     4. If institutional breakdown becomes inevitable, is there an alternative solution for the countries of the region?

You know, the six-month moratorium that the Timbuktu Institute has always advocated seems to me to be a good option that splits the difference. It respects the choice made by the ESA countries, which see merit in the creation of a group that can take greater account of their specific characteristics and priorities, notably in terms of security, while guaranteeing that the ECOWAS countries, which have taken note, can comply with the organization's regulatory framework. An alternative solution could be envisaged to maintain the thread of dialogue and avoid hampering regional cooperation, which has become a collective security issue with the transnationality of threats and challenges, until the current crisis has been overcome. We need to start thinking now about an Association Agreement between the ESA Confederation and ECOWAS in targeted areas such as trade and, above all, integrated border surveillance and management. There are precedents and best practices in this area, such as the Association Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation, concluded on November 28, 2023, which has safeguarded a framework for cooperation on key issues: the free movement of people, air traffic, road traffic, agricultural products, technical barriers to trade, public procurement, educational and scientific exchanges, etc. The WAEMU instruments, of which the ESA countries are still members, could facilitate the establishment of such frameworks. Bilateral agreements, which are already being considered (Niger-Nigeria, for example), could complement this common base with an agile approach that emphasizes ongoing dialogue and awareness of collective challenges.

Source: Le Soleil, December 17, 2024