Last Friday, six leading public figures in Nigeria urged President Bola Tinubu to shun overtures from the United States and French governments to relocate their military bases from the Sahel to Nigeria.
They made the call in an open letter to the president and the leadership of the National Assembly advising the Federal Government not to succumb to such pressure.
The prominent Nigerians include Professor Abubakar Siddique Mohammed of the Centre for Democratic Development, Research and Training (CEDDERT), Zaria; Professor Kabiru Sulaiman Chafe, a former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, representing the Arewa Research and Development Project (ARDP) Kaduna; Professor Attahiru Muhammadu Jega, a former Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); Professor Jibrin Ibrahim from the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Abuja; Auwal Musa (Rafsanjani) of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) Abuja; and Y. Z. Ya’u from the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD), Kano.
They revealed that the governments of America and France have maintained aggressive lobbying of Nigeria and other Gulf of Guinea countries, to sign new defence agreements which would allow them to redeploy their troops, expelled from Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
The six gentlemen expressed worry that Nigeria, as the most strategically located could give in to this pressure, thereby jeopardising its defence, sovereignty and internal security.
“The recent expulsion of French and American troops from Niger due to their perceived ineffective presence raises questions about the efficacy of hosting foreign military bases,” the open letter said.
The leaders noted that the main objective of these bases, appears to be to combat terrorism in the Sahel, but since those bases were established nothing positive has been achieved, rather presence escalated insurgency and terrorism.
They added, “It is important to clearly state that there are only dangers and no gains from such military operations.
“The American operations in Niger Republic, for example, were ostensibly to pre-empt and uproot terrorists from the Sahel region. The result has so far been quite unimpressive, if not a complete failure.
“It is apparent that the presence of American troops and other intelligence personnel in Niger Republic is not serving any useful purpose. This is for the simple reason that terrorism, far from abating, has risen dramatically since the US began its operations in the region,” they said.
The ‘Six Wise Men’ warned the FG not to compromise Nigeria’s sovereignty and independence for short-term strategic alliances that may have dire long-term consequences, adding that having foreign troops do leads to increased prices and living costs in local areas, disproportionately affecting the lower-income population.
Even before the recent complain by these prominent figures, there were dissenting voices from concerned Nigerians ventilating against the move to relocate the US and French troops on Nigerian soil after their expulsion from the Sahel.
Though, the federal government, through its Information Minister, Mr. Mohammed Idris, had quickly debunked the reports as “baseless and unfounded”, the public apprehension is not far-fetched as it was widely reported that over the past year, the American and French governments have been desperately lobbying the governments of Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Benin, Togo and Nigeria to agree to sign new Defence pacts that would enable them redeploy their soldiers expelled from Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. Some of the troops have been redeployed to Chad but France and United States prefer countries of the Gulf of Guinea that are more strategically located to serve their interests in the central zone of the Sahel. Of the countries in the Gulf of Guinea, Nigeria turns out to be “the most strategically located”.
Whether one believes the government’s rebuttal or not, signing such a military pact by Nigeria would have wide ranging implications for defence and internal security of the country.
It will be recalled that on December 22, last year, France’s 1,500 troops deployed in Niamey and two other bases in the tri-frontier of Niger were marched out of the country, while in March this year the General Tchiani-led military government suspended the military agreement with the United States signed in 2012. The pact allowed the US to station about 1100 US troops and civilian personnel permanently in Niger, to operate from two American bases in the country. American Airbase 101 is located in Niamey while Airbase 201 is located near the small northern city of Agadez, about 920 kilometres southwest of Niamey. These bases were used by the French and the Americans to carry out manned and unmanned surveillance flights and other operations in the Sahel. The bases had become the focal points for Western intelligence and surveillance operations in West Africa. They were expelled because their presence did not serve any useful purpose. Instead they were using the defence pact to carry out surveillance operations in the region to serve their geopolitical strategic interests. It was argued that Nigeria, alongside other Gulf of Guinea countries, are being pressured to compromise their sovereignty by harbouring these foreign troops who would come to serve the interests of NATO to the detriment of their national security interests.
According to Dr A. S Mohammed of the Centre for Democratic Development Research and Training in Zaria, Nigeria has historically and consistently opposed defense agreements with foreign countries since the 1960s when the Balewa administration was forced to abrogate the Anglo-Nigerian Defense Agreement, because the agreement contained a clause which allowed the Royal Air force to overfly and test its aircrafts in Nigeria. The Agreement also allowed the Royal Air Force to station maintenance staff in Nigeria. “The Balewa administration was pressured to abrogate the Agreement because public opinion perceived it as an impairment of Nigeria’s freedom of action which might draw the country into hostilities against it wishes.”
He also noted, “In 2001, in his bid to ostensibly re-professionalize the Nigerian army, President Obasanjo almost unilaterally signed the “Military Cooperation Agreement Between the US and Nigeria.” To its credit, the Ministry of Defense responded appropriately by opposing the agreement arguing that, the ministry was not involved in the negotiations between Nigeria and the US, neither were the service chiefs, who could have provided input relating to the syllabus and doctrinal content of the programme. In fact, the agreement was highly criticized by Lt General Victor Malu, the Chief of Army Staff at the time, when the US military officers demanded for Nigeria’s strategic doctrine and unfettered access its strategic military locations. According to General Malu, those were “exclusive to Nigerians only” adding that “a friend today can be an enemy tomorrow.” Malu was not alone in protest against the agreement. His immediate boss and Chief of Defense Staff, Vice Admiral Ibrahim Ogohi also told a visiting US Air
College delegation to his office that “what Nigeria needs is logistic support and not training.” In November 2007, the US renewed its attempt to set up its Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Nigeria. This move was rejected by the National Council of State. Incidentally President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was a member of the Council of State at the time.”
Reportedly, the Niger’s military government jettisoned their security cooperation agreement with the United States because of the attitude of a visiting US delegation to Niger which blatantly denied the sovereign rights of Niger’s people to choose their partners and allies capable of really helping them to fight terrorism. General Michael Langley, head of the African Command (AFRICOM) had expressed “concern” that Niger was cultivating close ties with Russia and Iran. Other reasons given for the abrogation of the agreement included the fact that the presence of the American troops in Niger was illegal. According to Amadou Abdramane the spokesperson for the Niger’s Military Council, “it was not democratically approved and imposes unfavourable conditions on Niger.” As the “Agreement” was simply a list of demands drawn by the US Embassy in Niger and sent to the Mahamadou Issoufou’s administration for its consent, which it willingly gave.
Explaining further, Dr. Mohammed, who aptly wrote in a widely circulated article recently, stressed that, “Nigerians must know that there are only dangers and no gains from such military operations. The American operations in Niger Republic for example were ostensibly to pre-empt and uproot terrorists from the Sahelian region. The result has so far been quite unimpressive, if not a complete failure. It is apparent that the presence of American troops and other intelligence personnel in Niger Republic is not serving any useful purpose. This is for the simple reason that terrorism, far from abating, has in fact risen dramatically since the US began its operations in the region.”
Data sourced from the Pentagon, he continued, indicate that “with 2,737 violent events, the western Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Western Niger) experienced the largest escalation in violent event linked to militant Islamist groups over the past years of any region in Africa, a 36% increase.” … ”Fatalities in the Sahel involving militant Islamist groups rose even more rapidly, 63%, resulting in 7,899 fatalities. Niger in particular in particular “saw a 43% increase in violent events in the past year. “All told, …attacks linked to militant Islamist groups in the Sahel have jumped 3,500% since 2016.” “At a minimum, more US security assistance isn’t leading to more security and all signs suggest it plays a role in making matters worse.” (Elizabeth Shackelford) “The Sahel now accounts for 40% of all violent activity by militant Islamist groups in Africa, more than any other region in Africa. …Militant Islamist violence in the Sahel is also responsible for the displacement of more than 2.6 million people. Are these results worth the erosion of sovereignty?”’
Undoubtedly, the biggest concern here is the potential erosion of national sovereignty. The establishment of foreign military bases raises fears that Nigeria’s decision-making will be influenced by external powers. Such action would potentially compromise Nigeria’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy, tackle insurgency and protect its national interests. Additionally, the presence of foreign troops may exacerbate existing crises and endanger national security.
