Hauwa Ali
West Africa is witnessing a political shake-up of historic proportions. The emergence of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), formed by Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, has thrown the region into uncharted waters. By turning their backs on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and forging closer ties with Russia, these nations have reshaped West Africa’s geopolitical landscape. This development presents both a challenge and an opportunity for Nigeria, the region’s most influential power.For decades, ECOWAS has symbolized regional cooperation, fostering economic growth, democratic governance, and collective security.
However, cracks in this unity have now surfaced. The decision of these Francophone Sahel states to reject ECOWAS’s authority is not just a political rebellion—it is a sign of their deep-seated frustrations with Western-backed governance models that have, in their view, failed to deliver security and economic stability. The shift also raises fears of increased foreign intervention, with Russia stepping in where Western influence has waned.Nigeria’s Role: A Delicate Balancing ActNigeria, the powerhouse of West Africa, now faces a tightrope walk.
As the largest economy and military force in the region, its role in ECOWAS is vital. However, the situation demands caution. Nigeria cannot afford to let ECOWAS collapse, but at the same time, it must avoid a direct confrontation with the AES states.President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has adopted a pragmatic approach, focusing on diplomacy rather than military intervention. His administration’s strategy revolves around three key areas: Dialogue Over Conflict, Recalibrating Ties with the African Union (AU) and European Union (EU) and Leveraging Economic and Energy Diplomacy.When ECOWAS initially threatened military intervention in Niger following the coup that ousted President Mohamed Bazoum, Nigeria took a step back.
Tinubu understands that war would only worsen regional instability and strain Nigeria’s already stretched economic resources. Instead, diplomatic channels remain open in hopes of maintaining some level of cooperation with AES.Nigeria’s diplomatic engagements have included backchannel negotiations, high-level meetings with AES leaders, and pressure on international partners to support peaceful resolutions.
The country has also leveraged its influence within the African Union (AU) to push for a more unified continental response, rather than allowing external actors like the European Union (EU) or Russia to dictate the outcome of the crisis.Nigeria is pushing for Africa-led solutions rather than relying on external forces to mediate the crisis. This strategy seeks to balance maintaining ECOWAS’s credibility while keeping economic and security partnerships with the EU intact. Nigeria has also used this as an opportunity to reassert its leadership role in African diplomacy, working closely with AU leadership to establish alternative frameworks for regional security cooperation.
However, the EU remains a key economic partner, and Nigeria has been careful not to alienate its Western allies. The Tinubu administration has reassured European nations that ECOWAS is still a viable entity and that Nigeria remains committed to upholding democratic governance and regional stability.Despite the political turmoil, Nigeria and the AES nations remain economically intertwined. Niger, for instance, supplies a significant portion of Nigeria’s uranium imports. Rather than relying on coercion, Nigeria is exploring economic incentives to encourage AES states to re-engage with ECOWAS.Nigeria has also proposed regional economic summits to address grievances raised by the AES states. The goal is to create a forum for discussing issues such as economic marginalization, security funding, and fair trade agreements. By demonstrating economic leadership, Nigeria hopes to prevent AES from becoming a permanently separate entity and instead encourage a reintegration process over time.One of the most alarming aspects of the ECOWAS-AES split is its impact on counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel.
The region is overrun by extremist groups, including Boko Haram, ISIS-West Africa, and Al-Qaeda-affiliated factions. Collaborative security efforts have historically been the backbone of the fight against these threats. However, the AES states’ decision to break away from ECOWAS jeopardizes these coordinated efforts.AES’s Shift Toward Russian Security AssistanceThe AES countries have turned to Russian-backed military support, including the controversial Wagner Group, arguing that Western-backed strategies have failed. While this shift has yielded some battlefield successes, concerns remain over the long-term implications of foreign mercenary operations in the region.There is also the issue of human rights abuses linked to Wagner operatives.
Reports from international watchdogs suggest that Russian-backed forces in Mali and Burkina Faso have been implicated in civilian massacres and extrajudicial killings. This has sparked fears that the Sahel is becoming a lawless zone where authoritarian regimes rely on foreign military forces to maintain power.With the AES states refusing to participate in ECOWAS-led security operations, intelligence-sharing and joint military efforts are at risk of falling apart. This disunity could create security vacuums, giving extremist groups room to expand their influence.
Nigeria’s DilemmaNigeria’s own security concerns have also grown. With Boko Haram factions still active in northeastern Nigeria, the country relies heavily on regional intelligence-sharing and cross-border counterterrorism initiatives. A fragmented security landscape means that Nigeria could face an uptick in terrorist activity if cooperation with AES is not maintained in some form.
Nigeria, as the region’s strongest military force, must decide whether to continue working exclusively through ECOWAS or pursue independent security agreements with the AES states to contain threats along its northern borders. The possibility of bilateral security partnerships is now a pressing consideration.
To counteract the security gap, Nigeria has already begun discreetly engaging with military officials in Niger and Mali. While maintaining its ECOWAS commitments, Nigeria is also ensuring that direct communication channels with AES leaders remain open, allowing for informal cooperation on counterterrorism issues.
Can ECOWAS Survive This Crisis?
The departure of the AES states is arguably the greatest test ECOWAS has faced since its inception. The organization must now decide whether it will evolve to accommodate changing political dynamics or risk becoming irrelevant. For Nigeria, this moment presents both a challenge and an opportunity.
Nigeria must prevent ECOWAS from further fragmentation while ensuring that it does not become entangled in unnecessary conflicts. The diplomatic and economic costs of failure would be severe, potentially undermining Nigeria’s leadership role in the region.
If ECOWAS fails to bring the AES states back into the fold, it could set a dangerous precedent where other dissatisfied member states begin seeking alternative alliances. This would weaken the entire foundation of West African cooperation and leave the region vulnerable to further foreign intervention.This crisis provides Nigeria with a chance to redefine regional diplomacy. By adopting a pragmatic approach that emphasizes economic cooperation, strategic security partnerships, and diplomatic engagement, Nigeria could solidify its role as West Africa’s stabilizing force.
If Nigeria successfully mediates a reconciliation between ECOWAS and AES, it will emerge as an even stronger regional leader. This could lead to long-term reforms within ECOWAS that make the organization more responsive to member states’ security and economic concerns.
West Africa stands at a crossroads. Whether ECOWAS remains a unified force or whether deeper divisions emerge depends largely on how Nigeria and its allies navigate the coming months. One thing is certain—regional politics in West Africa will never be the same again.
