Thread by @althecat

Ok so at 37 minutes in (near the end of the edited Q&A portion of this press conference the ECOWAS spokesperson begins « we don’t want people to be confused » - which is somewhat ironic given how confusing this latest restatement of threatened use of force to restore constitutional order in Niger is.,

The-war-that-has-not-yet-started-but-won’t-go-away appears to be back in the frame again after this rather desperate press conference accusing media in the region of being hysterical about the ECOWAS decision to keep use of military force (albeit not invasion) on the table in this ongoing dispute.

The main argument the spokesperson seems to make here is that ECOWAS has powers to do this from some rather old « instruments » and has decided to do so.

He says that no date has been set for a not-an-invasion-of-Niger to restore order, but did not mention an earlier statement from an ECOWAS military spokesperson which said that a d-day had been set.

He also objected to the use of the term « invasion » on the basis that if an invasion is authorised by an « instrument » which Niger has agreed to it is no longer an invasion.

This is legally problematic and raises questions for me about this particular instrument. How old is it? What are its origins? Does it override UN Treaty Article 2 rights of nations to sovereignty and territorial integrity? I do not think the EU treaties contain such provisions but am willing to be corrected on this.

If this is indeed a somewhat non-standard « instrument » as appears, or even a double standard made law some time ago then it deserves scrutiny.

There are too many aspects of this that I find confusing and some even a little disturbing but one deserves special attention.

If the media are to be rebuked for not telling a story correctly then the media’s responses i.e. questions ought to be included in the video. Not doing so is effectively censorship to my mind.

I hope there is another video including questions available. If not that also raises additional questions regarding probity.

On thé face of it what this tells us is that a minority of leaders of ECOWAS nations are ready to « not invade » Niger to restore the govt. And want to make it clear that this remains the case.

The mistake here by ECOWAS and it’s chair Nigérian President Bola Tinubu - whose position is being defended in this press scolding - is not simply the fact they made a decision to possibly use force, but that they set a deadline (bad diplomacy) and also that they did so before talking to the Niger coup leadership - which had the effect of sabotaging efforts to mediate.

The longer this charade continues the more it will appear to the public that some ECOWAS leaders seem to be in favour of going to war, begging the question why?

We can’t tell in this video what questions put to the spokesperson were not answered.

But had I been there my line of questioning around this would have focussed on special circumstances in relation to the threat of escalation of any intervention (particularly given the obvious interests at play of superpowers) as well as immediate economic cost of war and associated economic harm of any intervention - not to mention diplomatic & military risks/ harms to the region which would be occasioned if Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea (or some Nigerians) helped defend Niger. And this is before we even consider the risks that Chad and Algeria are concerned about namely to opening a window to expansion of the terror threats.

Maybe ECOWAS needs to put its foot down on coups, this is understandable - but given the mistakes and special circumstances of this particular coup - this may not be the time to do so.

There is a legal maxim on this. « hard cases make bad law » this is literally the hardest case imaginable, taking place:

1. amidst a financial crisis
2. with a brand new President with a mandate of questionable size (8 million votes in a country oh 200 million souls) as chair of ECOWAS
3. In the context of an accelerating superpower race for resources & minerals: incl rare earth, precious (esp gold) industrial(iron etc) & energy hydrocarbons and nuclear - all of which are present in the countries at the center of all this.

As I said at the outset of this, and repeatedly since. War over this coup in Niger is insane, pure and simple.

It would risk setting the entire region on fire and setting back its development by decades.

This crisis comes just as Western & Chinese investment for climate (clean energy) and conventional infrastructure as well (roading, rail, dams, electricity, internet etc.) as well grant funded investment in development (schools and hospitals) in Africa is expected to explode.

Does ECOWAS really want to risk missing out on all of that by deliberately choosing to make a stand on a hard case?

/ends

@threadreaderapp unroll