ACHIEVING A REJUVENATED ECOWAS

  

  The establishment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on May 28,

1975, is to among other objectives, promote economic relations and activities among member

states.

Part of the economic restructuring is the adoption of a single common West African currency

called ECO which will become the mode of exchange by all member states. The ECO currency

was supposed to take off in 2020 but has now be shifted to 2027. It seems the ECO currency is a

mirage considering the financial and economic requirements for member states, with a number of

them still having financial allegiance with their former colonial overlords. Some are suggesting

that the ECO currency should be a prestige item until we are sufficiently prepared enough to

adopt it.

Some of our leaders work in connivance with outsiders to undo their own countries. Sometime

ago, a Summit had barely ended when one of the leaders left his colleagues without any

explanation and went to Abidjan to announce to France that they were now going to replace CFA

Franc with ECO. That compromised the sovereignties of West African countries.

ECOWAS was a trailblazer in the way it handled conflict management and resolution in Liberia,

Sierra Leone, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, among others, to the point that it was better known for

security issues than the core agenda of fostering economic integration.

In the last 10 years, we have seen how contentious issues have tended to overrun a number of

member states. The quality of democratic elections within the sub-region has become a source

disputes. Political instability is beginning to crop into the sub-region. There was election crisis in

the Republic of Niger and The Gambia but ECOWAS intervened. Yahya Jammeh was compelled

to go into exile because ECOWAS never recognized the election result that he claimed that he

won. Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso was on the verge of setting his country ablaze, and some

soft-landing was arranged for him by ECOWAS. There was a coup in Mali, with the military in

firm control of about four key positions in the Malian transition government namely defence,

security, regional administration and reconciliation. ECOWAS also reeled out sanctions against

the country. With all these, it will be a fair assessment to say ECOWAS has not been in decline

in solving political problems of member states.

Nevertheless ECOWAS is supposed to be an economic integration body while member states

maintain their individual sovereignty which they are not willing to surrender for the smooth

running of the regional body. The leadership of ECOWAS tends to rely on the advice from their

home country before taking decisions.

ECOWAS is as good as the member states. If we are not happy with what is happening in

ECOWAS, we must also question what is happening at the individual states. It is the individual

countries that will give effect to the performance of the Commission.

As much as ECOWAS has been responsible in its duties with successful results to show, many

issues are hampering the growth and development of the regional body. ECOWAS risks losing

its focus and mandate if the current trend of political instability persists as a result of

mismanagement of political processes. There are still sovereign national responsibilities so that a

supra-national entity such as ECOWAS cannot continue to be running the affairs of individual

states.

ECOWAS is plagued by a number of other challenges. The rotational system of choosing leaders

in ECOWAS by alphabetical order or zoning has not helped. Perhaps it is time to look inward

and search for people who have competence and vision.

The internal crisis in the region as a result of free movement of persons, arms and light weapons,

has become major drivers or triggers of insecurity in the sub-region. With Ghana said to be the

leading producer of small arms and light weapons in the sub-region, the war to check the flow of

arms has to be fought jointly so that illegal weapons don’t end up in docile countries.

Porous borders are also enabling factors despite the body’s approved security plan in September

2019. ECOWAS is the sum total of its individual parts. It is the responsibility of each of these

members to control their borders and cooperate with one another. Member states should play a

role to protect their own boundaries and territories and get their members to do the same because

an organization is as strong as its weakest member.

There is a call to establish a permanent forum of West African National Security Advisers and a

committee of ECOWAS Inspectors General of Police. It remains to be seen what these initiatives

will achieve.

Structurally, there are duplications in ECOWAS. At the helm of the executive arm of the body is

the president of the Commission appointed by the authorities for a non-renewable period of four

years. He is assisted by a vice president and 13 commissioners. This reflects the full

representation of all 15-member states in the organization. Over the years, ECOWAS has been

working with this structure.

The idea of a reduced structure has been there. What has happened is that when ECOWAS

became a Commission in 2007 from an executive secretariat, the plan was to have seven

commissioners and then the president and vice president but members wanted to have a 15-

member composition.

However, the structure has now been reduced from fifteen members to seven members (five

commissioners plus the president and vice president). With the just concluded Summit of

regional leaders in Accra Ghana, this reduced size is expected to take effect from March 2022.

The existing 15-member commission of 13 commissioners plus the president and vice president

is considered top-heavy and expensive. The reduction is expected to save ECOWAS substantial

amounts to be utilized in the execution of community projects.

Members are not contributing as they should due to lack of commitment among other factors.

The body seems to take so many things at a time with little or no resources to fund the

programmes. Worse still, the organisation adopts more resolutions than it has the capacity to

implement. Twice in a year, ECOWAS meets, and the president of the Commission is expected

give a report every six months. But it is one thing to agree on a document, and another to carry it

through.

Nigeria bears more than 65 percent of ECOWAS budget, making the country the principal

funder. This makes Nigeria the big brother that should dictate the direction of the organization.

Sadly, Nigeria’s efforts are not reciprocated. There is always rivalry between the Anglophone

and Francophone countries. Sometimes, Francophone countries use their numerical strength to

have their way.

Nigeria has to be strategic in its big brother role. It is a call to duty for Nigeria to chart a new

path in West Africa. There should be a foreign policy review conference in Nigeria. The last one

took place in Kuru in 1986. It is time for another review which will help to set an agenda that

will define our principles and mechanism for implementation. We need to put the right tools to

perform the right tasks. We tend to repeat the same mistake over and over and expect different

results.

ECOWAS is Africa’s foremost regional economic community and the largest market on the

continent. There is great potential in ECOWAS but it has to be tapped.

There is a need to resuscitate the ECOWAS Council of the Wise (formerly Council of Elders)

headed by former President Goodluck Jonathan, with a view to activating preventive diplomacy.

The resuscitation of the Council is part of measures to nip conflicts in the bud before they

escalate. If the Council lives up to expectation, there will be less conflicts in West Africa.

 MOSES AMADI

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT: EXAMINING INTERNATIONAL FORA AGENDA: By MOSES AMADI

Driven by a sense of collective despair, underachievement and the will to address shortcomings

on the African continent, Nigeria and indeed, other African countries, have become regular

participants at functions organised by external institutions.

That seems to justify the increasing tendency towards proffering solution to Africa’s problems

by most countries located elsewhere outside the continent. This is reflected in the rising number

of international initiatives that focus on different aspects of Africa, a continent characterised by

high level of poverty and socio-economic degradation.

This is in view of the general consensus that such external engagements should have been

handled internally in Africa by Africans, given that the continent’s destiny is in the hands of its

citizens whose plight should tug at the conscience of those in leadership positions and compel a

greater attention to making the continent more conducive to the realisation of dreams.

In other words, the initiatives are what African countries, under the auspices of the African

Union (AU), should have carried out in terms of leading Africa towards peace and prosperity,

sustainable development and integration. Some of these milestones are embedded in the AU

Agenda 2063 including the Programme of Infrastructure Development for Africa (PIDA) and the

Common African Agriculture Plan.

A number of these foreign initiatives have been organized by countries within and outside Africa

including China, India, the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in

Japan, Sochi in Russia and Aswan in Egypt.

These are the various international summits aimed at refocusing attention of African leaders

from their pitiable state of incurable mediocrity, to discuss Africa’s problems and proffer

solutions affecting the continent including large deficits in finance, infrastructure, security, and

resolving dichotomies, among others.

Outcomes of some of the international investment summits seem to find feet on the ground of

reality as the various organisers come with packages believed to keep Africa out of

disempowering poverty. Available statistics reveal that in China, about $60 billion was provided

to African countries to access for infrastructural development. In Japan, it was about $40 billion

that was made available to help African countries in the area of innovation and technology. In

Sochi Russia, it was a debt relief of about $20 billion in addition to opening its doors for

cooperation in the areas of oil and gas, mining, agriculture, education, security, military

development and the growth of defence industries of African countries. In Saudi Arabia, it was a

sovereign wealth of about $200 billion that was offered. With these grants, it appears that

quantum leaps have been recorded from sincere promises to fulfillment.

But it is only judicious utilisation of these resources that can develop the economy of, and

improve living standard in Africa. Such investments are capable of providing robust opportunity

in the private sector to engage actively in driving development process and accelerating

industrialization on the continent.

From statistics, in terms of resources, Africa has 30% of the world’s known proven resources yet

the continent is poor. These are linked to bad leadership arising from institutional incapacities

and hesitant attitude of member states of the AU, which finds it difficult to make the great leap

forward to take Africa to the next level. This seems to give the impression that foreign summits

are gradually taking over the roles of the AU and other regional bodies in Africa. This is evident

in their quest to continually engage Africa on a broader and larger scale, given the continent’s

inability to articulate coherent and integrated programmes in solving its problems.

Surely, Africa has failed to rethink its own approach to global interaction and global diplomacy.

As a result, Africa seems to be vulnerable and demeaning itself as a continent that is running to

various world cities to discuss its problems which do not in any way confound standard solutions

and approaches. Sadly, international engagements have become attention-getters in terms of

telling African leaders to sit up and pay attention to Africa’s problems.

Inasmuch as Africa is not excluded from the dynamism of a global village, there is a strong and

legitimate reservation about placing too much hope in externally driven solutions to the

continent's problems. Devoid of any form of posturing, this in itself, is an invitation for Africans

to reflect on the true purpose of leadership.

This ties in well with the theme of the past Aswan Forum in Egypt tagged “The Africa We

Want.” This is instructive because the Africa of our dreams cannot be engendered by foreigners

whose actions are largely driven by self-interest. It is Africans themselves that will work towards

a peaceful and prosperous continent.

Sometimes, one wonders whether Africa will ever catch up with the rest of the world at the rate

it holds on to retrogressive narratives. Our collective predicament is responsible for our failure to

make progress. The present state of uncertainty about the future of Africa and the living

conditions of its people will persist until the continent generates from within an ideology of

equal dynamism that can fill the vacuum and act as a bulwark against foreign-driven solutions to

Africa's problems.

Africa must look inwards to develop its capacities, trade more with each other and advance the

process of integration by bringing back the core responsibilities and duties of its regional bodies

and the AU to be led by credible people.

It is time to launch and implement ideas that will translate into collective social flourishing.

Africa should develop the capacity to engage with the world on its own terms. As citizens, we

must cherish our freedom and the values that define a focused society by being proactive. This

way, we can give meaning to responsibility and accountability. We should rise to the occasion

and prevent the continent from sliding into dysfunction, a call to take up the challenge, speak

truth to leaders and demand a commitment of positive change in values, thoughts and reasoning.

Africa will do well to ensure evidence-based policymaking by enlisting the collective wisdom of

its scholars. Think-tanks like the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPPS), the

Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), among others, should play leading roles in

offering advice to government in this regard. Also, government on its part, should give itself over