The Nigerian president, Tinubu, must think twice before embarking on the war journey. The U.S. tried it in Vietnam in 1963 and failed. Again failed in Afghanistan
By Valentine Amanze
(5-8-2023)
Less than three months in office President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of Nigeria gladly accepted the leadership of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) despite his ongoing battle of legitimacy of his administration in the law court.
With little or no experience, Tinubu is facing his first major international challenge as president and ECOWAS leader – the Niger Republic military coup.
Without a functional cabinet and an expert on international affairs to advise him, the president took a hardline approach by issuing a seven-day grace to the military junta led by General Abdourahomene Tchiani to reinstate the dethroned President Mohammed Bazoum or face military, political and economic consequences.
He followed it up by cutting power supply to the land-locked country boardering the northern Nigeria.
The measure, and others to come, tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. He never thought about applying international diplomacy; but brutal force.
Tinubu has no right to declare or mobilize for war without the approval of the National Assembly.
A bird dancing in the middle of the road has drummers in the near-by bush.
Of course, the military junta in Niger Republic has told the Nigerian president to shut up.
General Abdourahomene Tchiani did not end there; he is also enjoying the massive support of the predomantly poor Nigeriens and presidents of Burkina Faso and Mali, who are all military leaders, with youthful ages of less than 50 years.
The juntas of Mali and Burkina Faso had already warned that any such move by the ECOWAS would be interpreted as a declaration of war on not only Niger, but the two in addition.
This raises the alert on whether ECOWAS is ready to handle a war with three of its 16 members at the same time.
Also read: Ministers: Tinubu submits additional 19 nominees to Senate for screening
A statement by the two countries read:
“The Transitional Governments of Burkina Faso and Mali have learned through the press about the conclusions of the extraordinary summits of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) held on July 30, 2023, in Abuja, concerning the political situation in Niger.
While Tinubu’s deadline ends this weekend, mobilizing soldiers against the juntas comes with consequences.
Tinubu and other ECOWAS members have failed to realize that the world is dynamic. What was the vogue in the 90s is not the same today.
ECOMOG has no stand-by army that could be mobilized at short time.
Also, the military and economic options that the Tinubu-led ECOWAS is proffering may end up consuming Nigeria’s comatose economy.
In the real sense of it, how many ECOWAS countries could finance or aid any military adventure now?
The time of ECOMOG in Liberia and Sierra Leone is over. Then, Nigeria was bouyant to execute the venture with little or no assistance from other countries.
A critical look at the celebration of the success of the coup at Niamey, the capital of Niger Republic, reveals people waving the flag of Russia. Why? Very simple: No smoke without fire. Russia may likely be knocking on the door for friendship.
The current war between Russia and Ukraine has started having its consequences outside Europe.
The hardship and poverty unleashed on Africa by their leaders and their Western allies are manifesting variously.
Burkinabe president was among leaders from South Africa, Rwanda and others who visited Russia and Ukraine recently to re-examine their economic relationship with Africa.
After their meetings which deliberated more on poverty in Africa, the young Burkina Faso leader, Captain Ibrahim Traore, blamed the past and present African leaders for the hardship in the continent.
He lamented that with the huge mineral resources Africa was not supposed to be poor.
Yes, he is right. Those milking Africa dry are their leaders, colonial masters and the U.S.
How come Chad, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger Republic – all former French colonies – are now under military rule?
The young leaders have suddenly woken up to the reality that their natural resources are fueling colonial masters’ economy.
The Niger Republic’s uranium is powering France’s solar energy, while the West African country depends on Nigeria for its electricity. Also gold from Mali is traded in Paris. What an irony!
What the military junta is asking is: “Where did the wealth of the nation go to?”
The Nigerian president, Tinubu, must think twice before embarking on the war journey. The U.S. tried it in Vietnam in 1963 and failed. Again failed in Afghanistan recently.
Niger Republic is an independent nation before being a member of ECOWAS; invading it with the military is suicidal as Nigeriens have embraced the junta unlike the democracy, which forced unpopular leadership on Nigeria today.
How would Nigerian leadership justify the military action against Niger Republic, when insecurity and poverty are still raveging Nigeria?
Time has come for African leaders to review their economic relationship with U.S., Europe and others.
Their rush to embrace and implement any idea from World Bank, International Monetory Fund (IMF) and other experts from the West must be reviewed by Africans in favour of the continent.
For soo long, Africa has remained a source of rawmaterials to the West with nothing to show for it at home.
Tinubu must realize that the push to attack a fellow African nation and also a naighbouring country is a bidding of the imperialist West, which does not favour Africa; think about the spiral effect on the economy and the movement of refugees.
Already, there are about 300 Nigerians in Niger Republic, who were displaced by the Boko Haram and the bandits.
What will be their fate if Tinubu and ECOWAS bombard the poor nation? Please, Tinubu, engage diplomacy; if it fails, allow the Nigeriens to run their government. After all, if their democracy was well run there wouldn’t be the return of the military rule.
