It is still fresh in our minds how the military alliance of NATO, facilitated by France with the support of some Arab countries, invaded Libya in 2011, ousted and killed the then leader, Muammar Gaddafi. This was done in the name of protecting the civilian population so as to avoid humanitarian crises, which might have ensued during the mass protest against the long-standing military regime of the late Gaddafi.
In the last couple of years, the ouster of democratically-elected governments by military juntas in Africa, especially the Sahel region, has been on the increase like a raging wildfire, without any sign of abating. It happened nearly two weeks ago in Niger Republic, after occurring in Mali, Burkina Faso, Sudan, and Chad between 2020 and now.
On July 26, the Presidential Palace Guard headed by General Abdourahmane Tchiani took President Mohamed Bazoum hostage for several hours, before finally declaring the toppling of his government. Diplomatic efforts through mediation and negotiations are being made to restore Bazoum, but the junta headed by Tchiani continues to be adamant.
Before, I didn’t take interest in commenting on this unfolding saga, but as a student of defence and security studies in one of the finest military universities in Africa, it behooves me to break the silence now that the event is taking another dimension, which is crucial to determining the continued existence of Niger Republic as a corporate entity.
Specifically, ECOWAS has mulled the possibility of authorising a military operation in the event that the junta failed to reinstate President Bazoum upon expiration of the ultimatum. In reaction, the coup plotters have already warned ECOWAS to stay clear of the affairs of Niger Republic, adding that, “We are determined to protect our homeland against any incursion.” To further demonstrate their defiance and to prepare for a showdown of military prowess, the junta has already appealed to Russia for military assistance in case of invasion by the allied forces of West African countries.
I am, however, worried about the consequences of unintended use of military force to achieve political objectives without post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation plans. Libya is a perfect case study. The country is now in a devastating condition without a centrally unified government due to extremist groups and arms proliferation.
Taking a look at the Arab Spring uprising which ensued about 12 years ago in countries like Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, one can correctly opine that Libya has been the most affected to the extent that its situation warranted a United Nations military intervention. The Libyan intervention took place in 2011 when citizens rose up against the long-standing dictatorship of Gaddafi, thereby demanding political reforms and freedom. But Gaddafi responded with a violent crackdown, leading to a deteriorating humanitarian situation and concerns about a potential massacre.
In response, the international community, led by the West, called for action to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster under the UN concept of Responsibility to Protect which asserts that, “States have a responsibility to protect their populations from mass atrocities, and when a state fails to do so, the international community can intervene.”
The politics surrounding the intervention in Libya were complex and multifaceted. Some other key factors that facilitated the action included geopolitical interest.
Although China and Russia- two among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council- voiced out their reservations against the use of military force on Libya, NATO forces, with support from Arab and non-NATO members, went ahead and conducted airstrikes to enforce the no-fly zone in the name of protecting civilians- the same civilians that are still counting the losses being incurred as a result of that barbaric operations.
Recall that the outcome of the Libya intervention was that Ghaddafi was overthrown and subsequently killed but Libya is still facing significant challenges in the post-conflict phase.
These are the consequences of unintended use of military force in a particular soil without a feasible and prudent post-conflict plan for reconstruction and rehabilitation.
God forbid, but the same scenario may likely ensue in Niger Republic if ECOWAS and other western nations who are drumming for military operations do not think twice about their intended actions. The aftermath of engaging in a military intervention in Niger Republic will be disastrous as more smaller arms and light weapons will find their way into the hands of non-state actors and that will further worsen the insecurity currently bedeviling the region.
I’m categorically stating that of all the neighbouring countries surrounding Niger Republic, Nigeria will be the worst hit in terms of insecurity and humanitarian crises. Weapons and displaced masses will eventually find their way into Nigeria through our porous land borders. But with the recent unfolding of events, it seems like conducting a military operation on Niger will be a recipe of war within the entire African region when one takes into consideration that Burkina Faso and Mali have recently thrown their weight behind the Niger coup plotters.
The effectiveness of using military force to achieve political objectives is still a debatable topic among pundits due to the consequences that usually accompany its aftermath as we have noticed in Libya. I suggest that the UN, AU and ECOWAS engage the junta through a peaceful dialogue for a smooth transition of power back to the hand of a democratically-elected government. That is what will help to avoid another ‘Libya’ in Niger.
Mukhtar, an author and public affairs commentator, writes from Kano
