What transpired the withdrawal of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso from ECOWAS?

In a move that has shaped the geopolitical landscape of West Africa, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso made the surprising declaration to withdraw from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

This article delves into the factors that led to this decision, shedding light on the tensions that have been brewing between these countries and the influential regional bloc.

The military juntas in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger made the decision to withdraw from ECOWAS on January 28. This move not only limited the opportunities for their citizens to seek justice for human rights violations but also raised questions about the state of regional cooperation in West Africa. The three countries accused ECOWAS of straying from its founding principles, succumbing to foreign influences, and failing to support their fight against terrorism and insecurity while imposing hasty and inequitable sanctions following military coups. In this article, we aim to delve into the notable factors that transpired the withdrawal of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso from ECOWAS.

The governments of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso released a joint statement accusing ECOWAS of becoming a threat to its members. They voiced concerns that the regional body was unduly influenced by foreign powers, compromising the independence of its decision-making process. Thus, the governments believed that ECOWAS had betrayed its founding principles, undermining the very essence of the organization.

One of the primary grievances expressed by the three countries was ECOWAS’ alleged failure to adequately support their fight against terrorism and insecurity. Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have all been grappling with significant security challenges in recent years, particularly from extremist groups and armed militias. They believed that ECOWAS had not taken substantial measures to address these pressing issues, leaving them to face the burden alone.

The imposition of sanctions by ECOWAS following military coups in the region further fueled the decision to withdraw. The governments of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso contended that these sanctions were not only illegal and illegitimate but also inhumane and irresponsible. They argued that these hasty measures failed to take into account the complex realities on the ground and lacked a sustainable approach to resolving political crises.

Since 2005, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has played a crucial role in hearing human rights cases brought by citizens of ECOWAS states. The court has delivered groundbreaking decisions on human rights issues, including some relating to Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. The withdrawal of these countries from ECOWAS has raised concerns about the ability of their citizens to seek justice for human rights violations, potentially impacting the region’s human rights landscape.

The withdrawal from the ECOWAS Treaty by Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger has significant implications for the citizens of these countries. The ECOWAS Treaty has long been seen as an important avenue for ensuring accountability and upholding justice, particularly when the national courts may be limited in their ability to provide access to justice. With the withdrawal from the treaty, the citizens of these countries may no longer have the opportunity to seek recourse through an independent and impartial tribunal.

However, the ECOWAS has not taken this withdrawal lightly. In an effort to address the situation, ECOWAS has consistently called for the three countries to return to civilian rule. To pressure the juntas and encourage a swift return to democracy, the organization has imposed sanctions and rejected the junta’s plans for extended transitions of power.

While Mali and Burkina Faso officially notified their withdrawal from the treaty on January 29, Niger followed suit the next day. According to the provisions outlined in the ECOWAS Treaty, member states wishing to withdraw from the bloc must provide one year’s notice. Therefore, despite the junta leaders’ statements, they still have a year to reconsider their decision.

The withdrawal from the ECOWAS Treaty not only raises concerns about the accountability and access to justice for citizens of these countries, but it also highlights the challenges faced by regional organizations in maintaining stability and democratic values. The actions and decisions made by these junta leaders will have lasting consequences for the people they govern, and the international community will be closely watching to see how this situation unfolds and whether alternative avenues for accountability can be established.

What challenges will Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso face after leaving ECOWAS?

Yingi further argues that the absence of France and other Western countries leaves a vacuum that Russia is now taking advantage of, while other nations are likely to follow suit. This shift in alliances has been in motion for some time, as we saw last year when Burkina Faso’s military leaders ordered France to withdraw troops, and similar actions were taken by Mali. In August 2023, Niger also announced the overturning of military cooperation agreements with Western nations. In fact, France recently announced the closure of its embassy in Niger, citing operational obstacles.

The repercussions of this exodus are concerning, particularly in the ongoing battle against terrorism. Ismael, another expert in the field, believes that the withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger will not only pose challenges in the fight against terrorism but also exacerbate the ongoing insecurity in these countries. The absence of support and resources from ECOWAS and Western nations will likely exacerbate the already fragile security situation, making these countries more susceptible to insurgency and instability.

Ismael’s belief that the withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger will create challenges in their fight against terrorism and increase insecurity is a valid concern. These countries have been heavily impacted by insurgency and have relied on the support and cooperation of ECOWAS member states to combat these threats. By withdrawing, they risk losing the collective strength and resources that come from being part of a regional bloc dedicated to promoting peace and security.

On the other hand, Yingi presents an interesting perspective. He suggests that the trio’s decision to withdraw may be a strategy to pressure other ECOWAS members to lift their suspension from the bloc. This raises questions about the underlying motivations behind their actions. Is their withdrawal a response to perceived injustices within the bloc, or is it a tactical move to gain leverage?

Yingi also points out that ECOWAS is unlikely to allow the three countries to depart without negotiations. This indicates that there may be ongoing discussions and deliberations among the member states to address the concerns and grievances raised by Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. It remains to be seen what these negotiations will entail and whether they will lead to a resolution that satisfies all parties involved.

Furthermore, if the three landlocked countries do go through with their withdrawal, they will face significant economic implications. As part of ECOWAS, they have benefited from access to the sea through other member states, enabling them to engage in trade and commerce. Losing this access will force them to find alternative routes to the sea, which can prove challenging and costly. This underscores the interconnectedness and interdependence among ECOWAS countries, both politically and economically.

Overall, the withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger from ECOWAS raises complex issues and potential consequences. The fight against terrorism, regional stability, and economic development are all at stake. It is crucial for all parties involved to engage in open and constructive dialogue to find a mutually beneficial resolution that can address the concerns of the withdrawing countries while also upholding the overall objectives of the bloc.