People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
TryCatcher mentioned Senegal's preparedness to invade earlier. To defend democracy! (mocking Senegal's narrative, not Trycatcher's post)
What about this? From Amnesty International, a few months ago. "The Senegalese authorities are intensifying repression ahead of the 2024 presidential election by cracking down on human rights, restricting civic space, banning protests and detaining a journalist and opposition figures, Amnesty International said today." The article goes on to list various opposition figures imprisoned for such crimes as "offending state institutions." Protests are banned, if not wholly then often, with people arrested for “participation in an unauthorized gathering." Planned meetings of opposition parties interrupted. Television stations which cover opposition protests shut down for "irresponsible” coverage. Protesters shot dead with live ammo, including multiple children, with no investigations afterwards.
Based on this, the government of Senegal does not, to my eyes, seem terribly committed to democracy. And yet they're willing to go to war over it? Or maybe there is more going on here, and maybe immediately overlaying moral categories based on what title is on the head of state's nametag is not the best way to understand or assess the situation. ECOWAS's motivations shouldn't be accepted at face value.
Nigeria cut off electricity supply to its northern neighbor Niger on Wednesday after the military coup in the country.
The move was in line with sanctions decided by Niger’s West African neighbors, according to local media.
Niger used to get 70% of its electricity from Nigeria.
Those are bad news for the coup, since it says a lot about the current state of Niger's economy compared to their neighboors.
It is bad news for the people of Niger. And it is cruelty. Niger is among the world's poorest countries and France and ECOWAS are either going to invade it or try to strangle it to death. Niger should be left alone unless it attacks one of its neighbors.
Small correction: France and ECOWAS are likely to either invade or strangle to death Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, which are the three countries in question, and the latter two pledged to support Niger.
They are still likely to get flattened by France and ECOWAS anyways, with or without Wagner troops.
Small correction: France and ECOWAS are likely to either invade or strangle to death Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, which are the three countries in question, and the latter two pledged to support Niger.
They are still likely to get flattened by France and ECOWAS anyways, with or without Wagner troops.
If France is not directly involved (or possibly even if they are), then I'm not sure we can say with certainty that ECOWAS will win against Niger and its allies easily or quickly, even though they appear to be stronger force.
But if it actually comes to that, I think no one gets to leave afterwards, because if the anti-French bloc is militarily defeated the victors have to face JNIM and IS, likely under much worse conditions. Maybe France could bail, though I doubt it, but ECOWAS couldn't.
Like, "the French/ECOWAS roll through 3 African capitals and restore democracy by Christmas" seems a less likely outcome to such a war than "major catastrophe for Africa as a whole." Especially since it's occurring at the same time that Sudan is brought to ruin and chaos through civil war. The distinctly unstable situations in the multi-state Lake Chad region and in Libya would not benefit either.
For all of these reasons, I think one side or the other will back down. I think enough people on one or both sides will recognize that an interstate regional war on top of a transnational salafist insurgency could easily destroy the region, and will make concessions. But I am afraid of what might happen if I am wrong.
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
It doesn't matter in regards to this coup goes.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Find out some way "the West" is even tangentially involved and then work your way back to how they're to blame for literally any situation.
This is a hilarious thing to say about a former colony
Especially about the French who get mega mad over any perceived national slight, I don't know if youve heard about a place called Haiti
Or more recent events Algeria
It's not always the west fucking around but a lot of times it still is lmao
Dang, Niger used to be a French colony. Welp, I guess that explains everything, case closed.
I mean no but you'd be foolish to be like ah yes the African mining industries famously owned by mostly Canadian and Norwegian companies
Colonialism never ended it just took a new face, and even if not oit of anything France has done regionally they are a European nation who doesn't like their pride being attacked even in the old blood ways
And yeah coups are bad but it's not really surprising this happened it didn't come out of no where
Doing some research, and Niger in particular has long had an history of coups and assasinations.
In particular, from all 10 Heads of State Niger had on it's history, only 4 finished their terms. From those 4, 3 were the generals doing the coups. Some times the generals and presidents had friendly relationships with France, sometimes, like now, they are hostile. So it is a factor, but not the only factor since Niger has never had a stable democracy to begin with. There was some hope because Issofou managed to finish his term and hand things to Bazoum, but, well, this happened.
As an example, there's Maïnassara, ruling from 1996-1999. He had the bright idea to go full fundamentalist authoritarian theocracy AND also go full shock therapy with the IMF. Result: He got shot on the back while going to his helicopter by his own bodyguards.
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
It doesn't matter in regards to this coup goes.
It should matter in how we assess a prospective invasion of the country by those governments, though. And in what we judge the motivations behind the invasion to be.
Radio France International quoted one of the junta spokesmen to have announced on national television, saying: “The functions of the extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassadors of the Republic of Niger to France, Nigeria, Togo and the United States are terminated.”
Oh. That bad. Deadline approaches and no side seems to be willing to back down, so guess that will have to wait until the announcement on Sunday.
President Bola Tinubu has written to the Senate seeking its support for military intervention against the military junta in the Niger Republic.
He also sought the backing of the legislature on the cutting off of electricity to the country.
The President’s letter read, “Political situation in Niger. Following the unfortunate political situation in Niger Republic culminating in the overthrow of its President, ECOWAS under my leadership condemned the coup in its entirety and resolved to seek the return of the democratically elected govt in a bid to restore peace, ECOWAS convened a meeting and came out with a communique.”
The president further sought support for, “Military buildup and deployment of personnel for military intervention to enforce compliance of the military junta in Niger should they remain recalcitrant.
“Closure and monitoring of all land borders with the Niger Republic and reactivating of the border drilling exercise.
“Cutting off Electricity supply to the Niger Republic, mobilising international support for the implementation of the provisions of the ECOWAS communique.”
“Preventing the operation of commercial and special flights into and from Niger Republic; Blockade of goods in transit to Niger especially from Lagos and eastern seaports,” he added.
Electricity was already cut off, so can assume that the rest is happening already. On internal violence, well, all of this says "more than previously". Barring a miracle, can probably expect war to be declared on the weekend.
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
It doesn't matter in regards to this coup goes.
It should matter in how we assess a prospective invasion of the country by those governments, though. And in what we judge the motivations behind the invasion to be.
It should not. There are no perfect countries and in this case and many other one side is clearly better.
Many countries in Africa suffer from military rule and a cycle of coups. Even sham democracies are better than that. If other nominal democracies in the region can establish a precedent that they will not tolerate coups and will intervene to stop them that may hopefully dissuade others in the future. And that would be good for the stability of these countries, it would be a step in improving norms and expectations, and it would perhaps create an opportunity for progress.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
It doesn't matter in regards to this coup goes.
It should matter in how we assess a prospective invasion of the country by those governments, though. And in what we judge the motivations behind the invasion to be.
OK, well I mean, on one side you have the active members of the ECOWAS, which include several of the more democratic nations in Africa, including, yes, Senegal. It may not be up to Western standards, but both the EIU Democracy Index and the Ibrahim Index of African Government rank it in the top 10 for the continent. On the other hand, you have a group with the backing of several members of the ECOWAS who were suspended following military coups and, of course, Russia... you know, the country that's actively attempting to create a famine in Africa, because the nobody will let them commit genocide in peace. I'll side with flawed democracies and governments transitioning to democracy over a morally bankrupt junta with the backing of genocidal fascists any day of the week.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
People as well as political bodies can be allies in one context and enemies in another.
The state of living in Niger is so bad that an a****** making things better is preferable to a saint making things worse
I'm extremely skeptical General Tchiani is going to make anything better though. And that this isn't just about not wanting to be pushed out of his position.
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
It doesn't matter in regards to this coup goes.
It should matter in how we assess a prospective invasion of the country by those governments, though. And in what we judge the motivations behind the invasion to be.
It should not. There are no perfect countries and in this case and many other one side is clearly better.
Many countries in Africa suffer from military rule and a cycle of coups. Even sham democracies are better than that. If other nominal democracies in the region can establish a precedent that they will not tolerate coups and will intervene to stop them that may hopefully dissuade others in the future. And that would be good for the stability of these countries, it would be a step in improving norms and expectations, and it would perhaps create an opportunity for progress.
Democracy is valuable for the function, not the form. There's nothing of value in sham democracy.
Anyway, as bad as a military coup is, without widespread internal violence Im not sure there's a moral justification for invasion.
People as well as political bodies can be allies in one context and enemies in another.
The state of living in Niger is so bad that an a****** making things better is preferable to a saint making things worse
I'm extremely skeptical General Tchiani is going to make anything better though. And that this isn't just about not wanting to be pushed out of his position.
For starters, the list that Nigeria just passed means that things inmediatly got worse and, let's ask this, the plan is...what exactly?. Piss off every country that Niger depends up to the point they are going to declare war on it, and then....trust Putin and Xi to bail him out with Wagner troops? Seriously?
Because if that's it, he just signed himself and Niger for a whole lot of bad going his way.
People as well as political bodies can be allies in one context and enemies in another.
The state of living in Niger is so bad that an a****** making things better is preferable to a saint making things worse
I'm extremely skeptical General Tchiani is going to make anything better though. And that this isn't just about not wanting to be pushed out of his position.
For starters, the list that Nigeria just passed means that things inmediatly got worse and, let's ask this, the plan is...what exactly?. Piss off every country that Niger depends up to the point they are going to declare war on it, and then....trust Putin and Xi to bail him out with Wagner troops? Seriously?
Because if that's it, he just signed himself and Niger for a whole lot of bad going his way.
Well, Nigeria cutting off the power supply and making life worse for the people in Niger is not really on Tchiani, thats on Bola, same with the casualties and destruction a military intervention or sanctions would leave.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
People seem to be just accepting the democratic nature of the ECOWAS states uncritically, which is confusing because everyone is aware of pseudo-democracies which are in reality not democratic. I mean is Russian democracy legitimate? They have elections. A false screen of democracy can cover a state which most democrats would consider authoritarian if experienced. I do not know enough about the ECOWAS states to say how many of them that description applies to. But in this thread I've already posted multiple articles which I think should provoke doubt in the democratic legitimacy of the previous Nigerien government. I feel that these points have been unjustly ignored and not engaged with in some assessments (looking at you here hamhamj).
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
It doesn't matter in regards to this coup goes.
It should matter in how we assess a prospective invasion of the country by those governments, though. And in what we judge the motivations behind the invasion to be.
It should not. There are no perfect countries and in this case and many other one side is clearly better.
Many countries in Africa suffer from military rule and a cycle of coups. Even sham democracies are better than that. If other nominal democracies in the region can establish a precedent that they will not tolerate coups and will intervene to stop them that may hopefully dissuade others in the future. And that would be good for the stability of these countries, it would be a step in improving norms and expectations, and it would perhaps create an opportunity for progress.
Democracy is valuable for the function, not the form. There's nothing of value in sham democracy.
Anyway, as bad as a military coup is, without widespread internal violence Im not sure there's a moral justification for invasion.
I kind of feel like the operative word in “Sham Democracy” is the sham part.
You know
The adjective that implies it’s not an actual democracy, it just wears the trappings as a means of bolstering its own authoritarian structures and deflect against criticism and condemnation.
So it’s kind of weird to say “it’s better to be a sham democracy than a military dictatorship,” or what not. What Ham’s basically said is “I prefer to at least be lied to about the authoritarian rule, to be deceived into believing that the government is in any way responsive to the will of its people (when it’s not).”
Niger doesn't score too great on the Democracy indexes, but it's definitely more on the 'Democracy with problems' side of things compared to 'authoritarian government sham democracy'.
So arguing about sham democracies is kinda losing the plot because Niger isn't one of those but did just had a military coup overthrow their democratically elected government.
Niger doesn't score too great on the Democracy indexes, but it's definitely more on the 'Democracy with problems' side of things compared to 'authoritarian government sham democracy'.
So arguing about sham democracies is kinda losing the plot because Niger isn't one of those but did just had a military coup overthrow their democratically elected government.
I feel like the first two paragraphs of the executive summary on your first link reveals youo’re kind of underselling the “Democracy with problems” thing here:
Niger’s largely peaceful and seemingly democratic presidential elections in 2020 and 2021 will result in the country’s first handover of power from one civilian leader to another. This is a milestone in the country’s political history. However, President Mahamadou Issoufou’s second term has seen authoritarian backsliding. Civil society organizations, protest leaders and journalists critical of the government have become the victims of violence and intimidation by the security services. Many individuals critical of the government have been incarcerated under dubious circumstances and for lengthy periods. These are worrisome developments, as they undermine many of the democratic gains of the 2011 political transition. Many constitutional provisions of the Seventh Republic, such as the separation of powers and the provision of basic social services, exist only on paper. At the same time, civil society is vibrant, there are viable opposition parties, and the critical press is alive and well. The sequel to the presidential runoff in late February 2021 will provide a first indication if the next five years will see further authoritarian backsliding or a return to democratic governance.
Niger’s economic challenges have remained the same. As an agricultural economy and one of the world’s five largest uranium exporters, the country’s well-being depends on three factors: the influx of foreign money, the weather (in particular the precipitation rates) and developments on the world market. As a result, Niger has little autonomy over economic developments. The lack of a viable judicial system, the prevalence of corruption, the absence of long-term planning, and an ailing infrastructure stand in the way of urgently needed improvements. One of the world’s highest population growth rates constitutes an important additional challenge. President Issoufou was able to rely on the support of Western donors due to Niger’s important role as a local partner in the fight against violent Islamic extremism in the Sahel. The government has also been good at fostering economic cooperation with non-Western powers such as China, Turkey and a number of Arab nations.
Given the other things we’ve discussed, this sounds less like Niger was a “democracy with problems” and more of a Neocolony where the administration was favored by the multiple outside powers because it kept resource extraction going in the way that benefited those powers, while this in turn raised strife and tension among the people and is now finally reached its breaking point, resulting in a military coup seeking to capitalize on all of this.
Still kind of amazing to read from the summary “listen, critics and journalists reporting on the government have been harassed, oppressed and jailed for their dissent against Issoufou’s administration, but hey, they still have a critical press that’s “alive and well” (even as the state does its damndest to kill it).
That is like two years old. It misses the fact that there was a peaceful transfer of power in 2021 and based on the reporting I've seen it seems more accurate to say it resulted in a "return to democratic governance". Until the security forces overthrew the government.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I do think the fact that the opposition (not just one party, but the two main opposition parties) regard the election as illegitimate and fraudulent is significant here. It does not necessarily mean that the election was in fact a sham. But it
a. puts us in a position of not knowing whether it was a sham or not, especially in the absence of observers who are not one of the two parties in the current conflict, and
b. Likely means that a large portion of Nigerians do not view their own government or elections as legitimate or democratic. And in most senses, what they believe about their government is more important than what we believe
Real question, if it turned out that a majority of Nigeriens supported the coup, and opposed their previous government, would that change the views of those arguing in favor of the French/ECOWAS stance?
Or hell, how about if a majority of Nigeriens simply oppose Niger being invaded, even if they were opposed to the coup? I'd bet money that this is the case, honestly, because it's hard to imagine that most Nigeriens care enough about Bazoum to want ECOWAS and possibly the French to invade their own country. If so, can one reasonably use notions of defending democracy to justify an action that most of the people in the country in question oppose?
Like, if Nigeriens right now were given a ballot and asked to vote between ECOWAS invasion vs junta remains, y'all think the "invade my country" option would have a good chance of winning the vote?
And another, arguably more important question, which really should be receiving more focus relative to the democracy stuff
Let us suppose that Bazoum and the elections are totally legit, the coup is widely hated by Nigeriens, etc. What are the likely consequences of an invasion of Niger?
Currently the threatened situation is that of ECOWAS (or at least some of its members), led by Nigeria, attacking Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Possibly with French forces assisting in invading their former colonies (this is significant even if you don't care about it, because people there might). Islamic State and an al-Qaeda led coalition control swathes of territory between these countries (especially Mali and Burkina Faso), probably a small-mid sized nation-state's worth between them. Nigeria itself has IS and Boko Haram in the northeast, along the Niger/Chad Border, as well as a large portion of the northwest under the control of "bandit clans." We all know, or should at any rate, that these groups tend to expand and grow stronger in times of wars between states or other political factions. And I again point to Sudan; we have not yet seen the major regional repercussions of that increasingly devastating civil war but it seems impossible that we won't, and interaction between these two crises would be ruinous.
Is "democracy is restored" really the most likely outcome here, if it comes to this war? Does this not seem like something that, even if it was well-intentioned, would have a pretty high chance of instead turning into an absolute catastrophe? Might the risks not outweigh the downsides of a Nigerien junta? The "explode West Africa" outcome doesn't seem all that unrealistic and the question shouldn't be considered without addressing the possibility and consequences of failure.
I do think the fact that the opposition (not just one party, but the two main opposition parties) regard the election as illegitimate and fraudulent is significant here. It does not necessarily mean that the election was in fact a sham. But it
a. puts us in a position of not knowing whether it was a sham or not, especially in the absence of observers who are not one of the two parties in the current conflict, and
b. Likely means that a large portion of Nigerians do not view their own government or elections as legitimate or democratic. And in most senses, what they believe about their government is more important than what we believe
Real question, if it turned out that a majority of Nigeriens supported the coup, and opposed their previous government, would that change the views of those arguing in favor of the French/ECOWAS stance?
Or hell, how about if a majority of Nigeriens simply oppose Niger being invaded, even if they were opposed to the coup? I'd bet money that this is the case, honestly, because it's hard to imagine that most Nigeriens care enough about Bazoum to want ECOWAS and possibly the French to invade their own country. If so, can one reasonably use notions of defending democracy to justify an action that most of the people in the country in question oppose?
Like, if Nigeriens right now were given a ballot and asked to vote between ECOWAS invasion vs junta remains, y'all think the "invade my country" option would have a good chance of winning the vote?
I mean it's become a common thing that the losing party or parties in an election scream that the results of the election were illegitimate and fraudulent. That doesn't mean those claims are accurate, nor can you extrapolate simply from those claims as you're trying to do here that the public is largely in support or opposition to the elected government.
I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of the ECOWAS (or French) invasion of Niger with the information that is presently available.
However I'm fairly comfortable and feel like it's a relatively safe and uncontroversial position to take that military coups are rarely a good thing when they are overthrowing democratic governments. The fact that the military coup is supported by the likes of fucking Wagner is definitely something that makes me think in the absence of more information this is a bad fucking thing for the people of Niger. Like imperialism is bad, but trading French arms-length colonial legacy for fuckin' Russian mercenary imperialism is not a step forward for democracy.
I do think the fact that the opposition (not just one party, but the two main opposition parties) regard the election as illegitimate and fraudulent is significant here. It does not necessarily mean that the election was in fact a sham. But it
a. puts us in a position of not knowing whether it was a sham or not, especially in the absence of observers who are not one of the two parties in the current conflict, and
b. Likely means that a large portion of Nigerians do not view their own government or elections as legitimate or democratic. And in most senses, what they believe about their government is more important than what we believe
Real question, if it turned out that a majority of Nigeriens supported the coup, and opposed their previous government, would that change the views of those arguing in favor of the French/ECOWAS stance?
Or hell, how about if a majority of Nigeriens simply oppose Niger being invaded, even if they were opposed to the coup? I'd bet money that this is the case, honestly, because it's hard to imagine that most Nigeriens care enough about Bazoum to want ECOWAS and possibly the French to invade their own country. If so, can one reasonably use notions of defending democracy to justify an action that most of the people in the country in question oppose?
Like, if Nigeriens right now were given a ballot and asked to vote between ECOWAS invasion vs junta remains, y'all think the "invade my country" option would have a good chance of winning the vote?
I mean it's become a common thing that the losing party or parties in an election scream that the results of the election were illegitimate and fraudulent. That doesn't mean those claims are accurate, nor can you extrapolate simply from those claims as you're trying to do here that the public is largely in support or opposition to the elected government.
I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of the ECOWAS (or French) invasion of Niger with the information that is presently available.
However I'm fairly comfortable and feel like it's a relatively safe and uncontroversial position to take that military coups are rarely a good thing when they are overthrowing democratic governments. The fact that the military coup is supported by the likes of fucking Wagner is definitely something that makes me think in the absence of more information this is a bad fucking thing for the people of Niger. Like imperialism is bad, but trading French arms-length colonial legacy for fuckin' Russian mercenary imperialism is not a step forward for democracy.
I said in that very post that the claims of fraud do not necessarily denote fraud, I have no way to tell which side's story is true.
AFAIK it's only supported by Wagner in the sense that Wagner said they liked it afterwards, which, of course they would. Unless you have additional info.
I interpreted a couple posts as supportive of ECOWAS intervention but perhaps that was me reading too far into them.
That said I admit that the bolded is a good counterargument. I guess where we diverge is that I'm currently unsure on how democratic to consider Niger's previous government. And I'm not so confident that the French relationship is necessarily less harmful in the long run than whatever they might establish with the Russians, given the depth and history of French power in this region.
edit - I will say that reports of Wagner's behavior in Mali so far support your case. Although I don't think any of it supports the case for an ECOWAS invasion (I know you weren't making one)
Is "democracy is restored" really the most likely outcome here, if it comes to this war? Does this not seem like something that, even if it was well-intentioned, would have a pretty high chance of instead turning into an absolute catastrophe? Might the risks not outweigh the downsides of a Nigerien junta? The "explode West Africa" outcome doesn't seem all that unrealistic and the question shouldn't be considered without addressing the possibility and consequences of failure.
The downsides of a Nigerien junta is that said jihadist elements will become even stronger and keep spreading south and west into Nigeria and the rest of the ECOWAS states. If all it accomplishes is keeping the fighting focused in Niger and not making things worse in Nigeria, that probably works out for Nigeria.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Is "democracy is restored" really the most likely outcome here, if it comes to this war? Does this not seem like something that, even if it was well-intentioned, would have a pretty high chance of instead turning into an absolute catastrophe? Might the risks not outweigh the downsides of a Nigerien junta? The "explode West Africa" outcome doesn't seem all that unrealistic and the question shouldn't be considered without addressing the possibility and consequences of failure.
The downsides of a Nigerien junta is that said jihadist elements will become even stronger and keep spreading south and west into Nigeria and the rest of the ECOWAS states. If all it accomplishes is keeping the fighting focused in Niger and not making things worse in Nigeria, that probably works out for Nigeria.
But that is what has been happening! The region's war has basically been getting worse every year for a decade. So far, "the jihadists grow stronger" has been occurring under both civilian and military government. That is a large part of what has driven or at the very least enabled these coups.
Regarding Nigeria, so far the dynamic has been the reverse: their insurgency (Boko Haram and IS West Africa Province) has been spreading into Niger and Chad. But if Niger is broken then these two regional wars will likely become one.
It's really fascinating that African nations get to be besieged by Christian and Muslim fundamentalist terrorist groups. Or trade one Eurasian power for another.
So what are our red flags for things getting significsntly worse and our green flags for things getting better?
I do think the fact that the opposition (not just one party, but the two main opposition parties) regard the election as illegitimate and fraudulent is significant here. It does not necessarily mean that the election was in fact a sham. But it
a. puts us in a position of not knowing whether it was a sham or not, especially in the absence of observers who are not one of the two parties in the current conflict, and
b. Likely means that a large portion of Nigerians do not view their own government or elections as legitimate or democratic. And in most senses, what they believe about their government is more important than what we believe
Real question, if it turned out that a majority of Nigeriens supported the coup, and opposed their previous government, would that change the views of those arguing in favor of the French/ECOWAS stance?
Or hell, how about if a majority of Nigeriens simply oppose Niger being invaded, even if they were opposed to the coup? I'd bet money that this is the case, honestly, because it's hard to imagine that most Nigeriens care enough about Bazoum to want ECOWAS and possibly the French to invade their own country. If so, can one reasonably use notions of defending democracy to justify an action that most of the people in the country in question oppose?
Like, if Nigeriens right now were given a ballot and asked to vote between ECOWAS invasion vs junta remains, y'all think the "invade my country" option would have a good chance of winning the vote?
I mean it's become a common thing that the losing party or parties in an election scream that the results of the election were illegitimate and fraudulent. That doesn't mean those claims are accurate, nor can you extrapolate simply from those claims as you're trying to do here that the public is largely in support or opposition to the elected government.
I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of the ECOWAS (or French) invasion of Niger with the information that is presently available.
However I'm fairly comfortable and feel like it's a relatively safe and uncontroversial position to take that military coups are rarely a good thing when they are overthrowing democratic governments. The fact that the military coup is supported by the likes of fucking Wagner is definitely something that makes me think in the absence of more information this is a bad fucking thing for the people of Niger. Like imperialism is bad, but trading French arms-length colonial legacy for fuckin' Russian mercenary imperialism is not a step forward for democracy.
It's not a step forward from the military assistance angle either judging by other countries who've also gone down this route recently. The reporting I read said that Wagner taking over the work France was doing before was just leading to even more brutal use of force in the same areas.
But that is what has been happening! The region's war has basically been getting worse every year for a decade. So far, "the jihadists grow stronger" has been occurring under both civilian and military government. That is a large part of what has driven or at the very least enabled these coups.
Actually the government of Niger had successfully turned things around since taking office.
Civilian deaths went down by half from 2021 to 2022.
Part of the junta's rhetoric is opposition to the more moderate methods that have achieved that progress. Which further puts paid to the idea that this is anything but a nakedly selfish power grab.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
But that is what has been happening! The region's war has basically been getting worse every year for a decade. So far, "the jihadists grow stronger" has been occurring under both civilian and military government. That is a large part of what has driven or at the very least enabled these coups.
Actually the government of Niger had successfully turned things around since taking office.
Civilian deaths went down by half from 2021 to 2022.
Part of the junta's rhetoric is opposition to the more moderate methods that have achieved that progress. Which further puts paid to the idea that this is anything but a nakedly selfish power grab.
It's a military coup of a democratically elected government. Only the most credulous of people would believe otherwise.
Like, if Nigeriens right now were given a ballot and asked to vote between ECOWAS invasion vs junta remains, y'all think the "invade my country" option would have a good chance of winning the vote?
I mean, I know what way I'd have voted if we were discussing the US after a successful Trump coup. Yeah, if NATO or the OAS had a shot at ousting him, I would have 100% supported that, even knowing that it would have led to bloody conflict with the large sector of the population that supports him.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I cannot tell if this is actually binding, because I do not know how Nigerian government works. However the fact that the president went to the senate for approval in the first place makes me think that their rejection of the war might be real. Or it could be a way for the president to walk back his threat with plausible democratic deniability.
But I'm not sure how to interpret this, curious to hear other opinions or if anyone has additional info
(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section:-
(a) the President shall not declare a state of war between the Federation and
another country except with the sanction of a resolution of both Houses of the
National Assembly, sitting in a joint session; and
(b) except with the prior approval of the Senate, no member of the armed forces
of the Federation shall be deployed on combat duty outside Nigeria.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, the President, in consultation with the
National Defence Council, may deploy members of the armed forces of the Federation on a limited
combat duty outside Nigeria if he is satisfied that the national security is under imminent threat or danger:
Provided that the President shall, within seven days of actual combat engagement, seek the consent of the
Senate and the Senate shall thereafter give or refuse the said consent within 14 days.
So it looks like he was required to seek approval. The All Progressives Party holds 54% of the Senate, so it may have been a walk back. From the article, it sounds like Nigeria's army is not equipped to take on Niger.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
The comments from the Senators are pretty brutal. Pretty much every objection raised so far: Diplomatic means not being spent yet, current state of the military, plenty of problems at home, the fact this war has a strong posibility to just fuck up Africa good, etc.
Without Nigeria, there's no ECOWAS intervention, so this appears to be everybody admitting that the week deadline was a bluff, since that's not enough time to do anything on any direction. Will have to see how things progress.
+4
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Good, that was way too fast of a reaction to go straight to war.
Posts
TryCatcher mentioned Senegal's preparedness to invade earlier. To defend democracy! (mocking Senegal's narrative, not Trycatcher's post)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/senegal-authorities-intensify-repression-ahead-of-2024-election/
What about this? From Amnesty International, a few months ago. "The Senegalese authorities are intensifying repression ahead of the 2024 presidential election by cracking down on human rights, restricting civic space, banning protests and detaining a journalist and opposition figures, Amnesty International said today." The article goes on to list various opposition figures imprisoned for such crimes as "offending state institutions." Protests are banned, if not wholly then often, with people arrested for “participation in an unauthorized gathering." Planned meetings of opposition parties interrupted. Television stations which cover opposition protests shut down for "irresponsible” coverage. Protesters shot dead with live ammo, including multiple children, with no investigations afterwards.
Based on this, the government of Senegal does not, to my eyes, seem terribly committed to democracy. And yet they're willing to go to war over it? Or maybe there is more going on here, and maybe immediately overlaying moral categories based on what title is on the head of state's nametag is not the best way to understand or assess the situation. ECOWAS's motivations shouldn't be accepted at face value.
It is bad news for the people of Niger. And it is cruelty. Niger is among the world's poorest countries and France and ECOWAS are either going to invade it or try to strangle it to death. Niger should be left alone unless it attacks one of its neighbors.
They are still likely to get flattened by France and ECOWAS anyways, with or without Wagner troops.
But if it actually comes to that, I think no one gets to leave afterwards, because if the anti-French bloc is militarily defeated the victors have to face JNIM and IS, likely under much worse conditions. Maybe France could bail, though I doubt it, but ECOWAS couldn't.
Like, "the French/ECOWAS roll through 3 African capitals and restore democracy by Christmas" seems a less likely outcome to such a war than "major catastrophe for Africa as a whole." Especially since it's occurring at the same time that Sudan is brought to ruin and chaos through civil war. The distinctly unstable situations in the multi-state Lake Chad region and in Libya would not benefit either.
For all of these reasons, I think one side or the other will back down. I think enough people on one or both sides will recognize that an interstate regional war on top of a transnational salafist insurgency could easily destroy the region, and will make concessions. But I am afraid of what might happen if I am wrong.
All I've seen from what you've linked is Bazoum banning protests. Which is almost certainly bad. But is still way less undemocratic or illegitimate then a literal military coup. Which is basically the reason it's been ignored.
Beyond "coups are bad", it seems like everyone else is just waiting for more info and to see what happens.
He's not saying they're worse or whatever, he's saying that several of the countries talking about the importance of democratic government are not believable.
Just wanted to share this to put the region in context
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
It doesn't matter in regards to this coup goes.
I mean no but you'd be foolish to be like ah yes the African mining industries famously owned by mostly Canadian and Norwegian companies
Colonialism never ended it just took a new face, and even if not oit of anything France has done regionally they are a European nation who doesn't like their pride being attacked even in the old blood ways
Doing some research, and Niger in particular has long had an history of coups and assasinations.
In particular, from all 10 Heads of State Niger had on it's history, only 4 finished their terms. From those 4, 3 were the generals doing the coups. Some times the generals and presidents had friendly relationships with France, sometimes, like now, they are hostile. So it is a factor, but not the only factor since Niger has never had a stable democracy to begin with. There was some hope because Issofou managed to finish his term and hand things to Bazoum, but, well, this happened.
As an example, there's Maïnassara, ruling from 1996-1999. He had the bright idea to go full fundamentalist authoritarian theocracy AND also go full shock therapy with the IMF. Result: He got shot on the back while going to his helicopter by his own bodyguards.
Oh. That bad. Deadline approaches and no side seems to be willing to back down, so guess that will have to wait until the announcement on Sunday.
Electricity was already cut off, so can assume that the rest is happening already. On internal violence, well, all of this says "more than previously". Barring a miracle, can probably expect war to be declared on the weekend.
It should not. There are no perfect countries and in this case and many other one side is clearly better.
Many countries in Africa suffer from military rule and a cycle of coups. Even sham democracies are better than that. If other nominal democracies in the region can establish a precedent that they will not tolerate coups and will intervene to stop them that may hopefully dissuade others in the future. And that would be good for the stability of these countries, it would be a step in improving norms and expectations, and it would perhaps create an opportunity for progress.
OK, well I mean, on one side you have the active members of the ECOWAS, which include several of the more democratic nations in Africa, including, yes, Senegal. It may not be up to Western standards, but both the EIU Democracy Index and the Ibrahim Index of African Government rank it in the top 10 for the continent. On the other hand, you have a group with the backing of several members of the ECOWAS who were suspended following military coups and, of course, Russia... you know, the country that's actively attempting to create a famine in Africa, because the nobody will let them commit genocide in peace. I'll side with flawed democracies and governments transitioning to democracy over a morally bankrupt junta with the backing of genocidal fascists any day of the week.
- John Stuart Mill
The state of living in Niger is so bad that an a****** making things better is preferable to a saint making things worse
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I'm extremely skeptical General Tchiani is going to make anything better though. And that this isn't just about not wanting to be pushed out of his position.
Democracy is valuable for the function, not the form. There's nothing of value in sham democracy.
Anyway, as bad as a military coup is, without widespread internal violence Im not sure there's a moral justification for invasion.
For starters, the list that Nigeria just passed means that things inmediatly got worse and, let's ask this, the plan is...what exactly?. Piss off every country that Niger depends up to the point they are going to declare war on it, and then....trust Putin and Xi to bail him out with Wagner troops? Seriously?
Because if that's it, he just signed himself and Niger for a whole lot of bad going his way.
Well, Nigeria cutting off the power supply and making life worse for the people in Niger is not really on Tchiani, thats on Bola, same with the casualties and destruction a military intervention or sanctions would leave.
I kind of feel like the operative word in “Sham Democracy” is the sham part.
You know
The adjective that implies it’s not an actual democracy, it just wears the trappings as a means of bolstering its own authoritarian structures and deflect against criticism and condemnation.
So it’s kind of weird to say “it’s better to be a sham democracy than a military dictatorship,” or what not. What Ham’s basically said is “I prefer to at least be lied to about the authoritarian rule, to be deceived into believing that the government is in any way responsive to the will of its people (when it’s not).”
So arguing about sham democracies is kinda losing the plot because Niger isn't one of those but did just had a military coup overthrow their democratically elected government.
https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/NER
https://www.ecofinagency.com/public-management/2301-40885-2019-ranking-of-democracies-in-africa-according-to-the-eiu
https://democracyinafrica.org/democracy-monitor/niger/
I feel like the first two paragraphs of the executive summary on your first link reveals youo’re kind of underselling the “Democracy with problems” thing here:
Given the other things we’ve discussed, this sounds less like Niger was a “democracy with problems” and more of a Neocolony where the administration was favored by the multiple outside powers because it kept resource extraction going in the way that benefited those powers, while this in turn raised strife and tension among the people and is now finally reached its breaking point, resulting in a military coup seeking to capitalize on all of this.
Still kind of amazing to read from the summary “listen, critics and journalists reporting on the government have been harassed, oppressed and jailed for their dissent against Issoufou’s administration, but hey, they still have a critical press that’s “alive and well” (even as the state does its damndest to kill it).
a. puts us in a position of not knowing whether it was a sham or not, especially in the absence of observers who are not one of the two parties in the current conflict, and
b. Likely means that a large portion of Nigerians do not view their own government or elections as legitimate or democratic. And in most senses, what they believe about their government is more important than what we believe
Real question, if it turned out that a majority of Nigeriens supported the coup, and opposed their previous government, would that change the views of those arguing in favor of the French/ECOWAS stance?
Or hell, how about if a majority of Nigeriens simply oppose Niger being invaded, even if they were opposed to the coup? I'd bet money that this is the case, honestly, because it's hard to imagine that most Nigeriens care enough about Bazoum to want ECOWAS and possibly the French to invade their own country. If so, can one reasonably use notions of defending democracy to justify an action that most of the people in the country in question oppose?
Like, if Nigeriens right now were given a ballot and asked to vote between ECOWAS invasion vs junta remains, y'all think the "invade my country" option would have a good chance of winning the vote?
Let us suppose that Bazoum and the elections are totally legit, the coup is widely hated by Nigeriens, etc. What are the likely consequences of an invasion of Niger?
Currently the threatened situation is that of ECOWAS (or at least some of its members), led by Nigeria, attacking Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Possibly with French forces assisting in invading their former colonies (this is significant even if you don't care about it, because people there might). Islamic State and an al-Qaeda led coalition control swathes of territory between these countries (especially Mali and Burkina Faso), probably a small-mid sized nation-state's worth between them. Nigeria itself has IS and Boko Haram in the northeast, along the Niger/Chad Border, as well as a large portion of the northwest under the control of "bandit clans." We all know, or should at any rate, that these groups tend to expand and grow stronger in times of wars between states or other political factions. And I again point to Sudan; we have not yet seen the major regional repercussions of that increasingly devastating civil war but it seems impossible that we won't, and interaction between these two crises would be ruinous.
Is "democracy is restored" really the most likely outcome here, if it comes to this war? Does this not seem like something that, even if it was well-intentioned, would have a pretty high chance of instead turning into an absolute catastrophe? Might the risks not outweigh the downsides of a Nigerien junta? The "explode West Africa" outcome doesn't seem all that unrealistic and the question shouldn't be considered without addressing the possibility and consequences of failure.
I mean it's become a common thing that the losing party or parties in an election scream that the results of the election were illegitimate and fraudulent. That doesn't mean those claims are accurate, nor can you extrapolate simply from those claims as you're trying to do here that the public is largely in support or opposition to the elected government.
I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of the ECOWAS (or French) invasion of Niger with the information that is presently available.
However I'm fairly comfortable and feel like it's a relatively safe and uncontroversial position to take that military coups are rarely a good thing when they are overthrowing democratic governments. The fact that the military coup is supported by the likes of fucking Wagner is definitely something that makes me think in the absence of more information this is a bad fucking thing for the people of Niger. Like imperialism is bad, but trading French arms-length colonial legacy for fuckin' Russian mercenary imperialism is not a step forward for democracy.
AFAIK it's only supported by Wagner in the sense that Wagner said they liked it afterwards, which, of course they would. Unless you have additional info.
I interpreted a couple posts as supportive of ECOWAS intervention but perhaps that was me reading too far into them.
That said I admit that the bolded is a good counterargument. I guess where we diverge is that I'm currently unsure on how democratic to consider Niger's previous government. And I'm not so confident that the French relationship is necessarily less harmful in the long run than whatever they might establish with the Russians, given the depth and history of French power in this region.
edit - I will say that reports of Wagner's behavior in Mali so far support your case. Although I don't think any of it supports the case for an ECOWAS invasion (I know you weren't making one)
The downsides of a Nigerien junta is that said jihadist elements will become even stronger and keep spreading south and west into Nigeria and the rest of the ECOWAS states. If all it accomplishes is keeping the fighting focused in Niger and not making things worse in Nigeria, that probably works out for Nigeria.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/MaliWar.svg
But that is what has been happening! The region's war has basically been getting worse every year for a decade. So far, "the jihadists grow stronger" has been occurring under both civilian and military government. That is a large part of what has driven or at the very least enabled these coups.
Regarding Nigeria, so far the dynamic has been the reverse: their insurgency (Boko Haram and IS West Africa Province) has been spreading into Niger and Chad. But if Niger is broken then these two regional wars will likely become one.
So what are our red flags for things getting significsntly worse and our green flags for things getting better?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
It's not a step forward from the military assistance angle either judging by other countries who've also gone down this route recently. The reporting I read said that Wagner taking over the work France was doing before was just leading to even more brutal use of force in the same areas.
Actually the government of Niger had successfully turned things around since taking office.
Citation: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/08/01/fanatics-and-putschists-are-creating-failed-states-in-west-africa
Civilian deaths went down by half from 2021 to 2022.
Part of the junta's rhetoric is opposition to the more moderate methods that have achieved that progress. Which further puts paid to the idea that this is anything but a nakedly selfish power grab.
It's a military coup of a democratically elected government. Only the most credulous of people would believe otherwise.
I mean, I know what way I'd have voted if we were discussing the US after a successful Trump coup. Yeah, if NATO or the OAS had a shot at ousting him, I would have 100% supported that, even knowing that it would have led to bloody conflict with the large sector of the population that supports him.
- John Stuart Mill
I cannot tell if this is actually binding, because I do not know how Nigerian government works. However the fact that the president went to the senate for approval in the first place makes me think that their rejection of the war might be real. Or it could be a way for the president to walk back his threat with plausible democratic deniability.
But I'm not sure how to interpret this, curious to hear other opinions or if anyone has additional info
(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section:- (a) the President shall not declare a state of war between the Federation and another country except with the sanction of a resolution of both Houses of the National Assembly, sitting in a joint session; and (b) except with the prior approval of the Senate, no member of the armed forces of the Federation shall be deployed on combat duty outside Nigeria. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, the President, in consultation with the National Defence Council, may deploy members of the armed forces of the Federation on a limited combat duty outside Nigeria if he is satisfied that the national security is under imminent threat or danger: Provided that the President shall, within seven days of actual combat engagement, seek the consent of the Senate and the Senate shall thereafter give or refuse the said consent within 14 days.So it looks like he was required to seek approval. The All Progressives Party holds 54% of the Senate, so it may have been a walk back. From the article, it sounds like Nigeria's army is not equipped to take on Niger.
- John Stuart Mill
Without Nigeria, there's no ECOWAS intervention, so this appears to be everybody admitting that the week deadline was a bluff, since that's not enough time to do anything on any direction. Will have to see how things progress.