Teacher don’t teach me nonsense

Back in 1986, the firebrand musicologist and pan-Africanist, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti (1938-1997), composed and performed the classic Afrobeat and Jazz infused hit: Teacher Don’t Teach Me Nonsense.

The polemicist, Fela, in the vocals, sung in pidgin English, bitterly railed against imperialism and rank hypocrisy by Western powers in African affairs with a particularly fiery line: “if goodu teacher, teachy something, and him student make mistake, teacher must talk so, but oyinbo, no talk so! Na support, dem dey support everybody, dat mean say, dem teaching get meaning, different different meaning, different kinds of meaning… di person you teach finish yesterday, don die today; democracy, crazy demonstration, demonstration of craze…”

Simplified, Western powers support democracy and military autocracy in Africa when its suits their own parochial interests, not when it is in the progressive interests of African nations. This article’s title is adopted from that song.

Contextually, and given the Nigerien coup d’état, Nigeria’s northern neighbour, on July 26, 2023, what’s the relevance of that song 37 years here? Does altruism have any role to play in the power dynamics of the global north’s foreign policy towards Africa? Whilst there may be some strategic divergence in the West’s foreign policy approach to Africa, how does this play out in the anglophone and francophone countries on the continent?

Should Nigeria and ECOWAS, backed by Western military and political might, be mounting a military invasion of Niger anytime soon? Assuming, without conceding that to be the case, what precedent might that set for Gabon, which witnessed a coup d’état on August 30, 2023? And especially so, given global war weariness – NATO’s involvement in the Russian/Ukrainian war; the Sudan crisis, Nigeria’s war against Islamic terrorists; Saudi Arabi /Yemeni war etc?

Fela’s chaunt, still strikes pertinent socio-political chords in the context of the Nigerien impasse, given the subversion of President Bazoum’s democratic government on July 26, 2023, by General Abdourahman Tchiani. The latter’s contention for ousting Bazoum was a rather opaque characterisation of the “national interest.” That coup d’état was roundly condemned by the global North; ditto the European Union and the 15-bloc Economic Community of West African states (ECOWAS), currently under Nigeria’s leadership.

France, francophone Niger’s former colonial power, imposed an instant and indefinite moratorium on all development aid and budgetary support (worth approximately $130 million in 2022) whilst demanding Mohammed Bazoum’s immediate restoration. The European Union’s foreign policy czar, Jose Borrell’s remarks were notably strident: “in addition to the immediate cessation of budget support, all cooperation actions in the domain of security are suspended with immediate effect.”

Although the United States condemned the Nigerien coup, the extant security arrangements between both countries invokes the necessity for diplomatic subtleties and sophisticated realpolitik. Afterall, Niger is a military base for the United States counter-terrorism operations against Islamic State and other extremist terrorist groups in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The United States has a dual military and economic engagement strategy with Niger. For one, America has approximately 1,000 troops in Niger and an $110 million drone base. Both are vital in America’s Sub-Saharan Africa counter-terrorism operations. On the other hand, the United States has developed a $442.6 million partnership aimed at transforming Niger’s extremely fragile economy, which, according to the World Bank, receives circa $2 billion annually in development aid.

The Nigerien coup d’état has therefore placed the extant economic and security compact between both countries at risk as well as the 1,000 troops who have since been restricted to Agadez, further north. Plainly therefore, these infernal complexities call for rational strategic choices, not rash sabre-rattling. Because if the United States adopts a much tougher pro-invasion stance, the lives of U.S. troops in the country could be at risk as will the hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars in Niger, which will inevitably go up in smoke!

Beyond that, is the humanitarian crisis which will inevitably flow from any invasion; adverse spillover effects risking exponential migration crisis; internal displacements running into millions, which will upend whatever remains of normality; further ethno-religious terrorism and crippling economic crisis in Nigeria and the wider ECOWAS region would be immense. In this precarious brigade, rests the fact that Britain, the European Union, the United States and the rest of the global north have toughened immigration and asylum policies.

Realistically, that means displaced West Africans fleeing persecution and seeking asylum in the global north will not be readily welcome. The rational inference therefore is for Africa to tidy its own affairs and fix its own problems. Within the province of international affairs geostrategic interests, not unbounded altruism, are the abiding and unwritten principles. African leaders must learn that and act wisely.

Now then, the Western condemnation of the July 2023 Nigerien coup however, sharply contrasts, the Egyptian coup d’état a decade ago on July 3, 2013, led by army chief, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. That coup toppled the democratically elected President, Mohammed Moris, of the Moslem Brotherhood. At the time, and since, there wasn’t, and there hasn’t been, any evidence of any Western country calling for an armed invasion of Egypt to restore Morsi to power, unlike Niger today.

In Europe, although David Cameron, then British Prime Minister opined that his country “never supports intervention by the military…”, his Foreign Secretary, William Hague, requested all sides, that this, the toppled Muslim Brotherhood; and the putschists, under General el-Sissi; to advance “a political process that includes all groups on an equal footing…” Across the Channel, the former French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, emphasised that: “in a situation that has worsened seriously and with extreme tension in Egypt, new elections have finally been announced, after a transition period”.

Traversing the Atlantic in the United States, then Deputy Secretary of State, William J. Burns, argued that “only Egyptians can determine their future. I did not come with American solutions, nor did I come to lecture anyone. We know that Egyptians must forge their own path to democracy. We know that this will not mirror our own and we will not try to impose our model on Egypt”. At the same time, the former U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that the Egyptian army had “restored democracy” by removing Mohammed Morsi. Pray, how do you “restore democracy”, by toppling a democratically elected government? Put another way, what does “democracy” mean if it is characterised by a subjective, not by an objective definition? Therefore, does democracy really possess any honest definition in high stakes realpolitik and geostrategic interests among Western countries in Africa?

Today, el-Sissi is still the Egyptian leader, having metamorphosed from an army chief to elected civilian leader. Magic? No! Realpolitik? Yes! Beyond that in 2021, bilateral trade between the United States and Egypt was $9.1 billion. In fact, Egypt is the United States biggest African export market. The U.S. exports aircraft, machinery, iron and steel products, mineral fuel, oil, corn and wheat. On its part, Egypt exports agricultural products, apparel, fertilizers, natural gas and oil to the United States.

The inferences are quite clear. “Democracy” is not a fixed concept that’s cast in stone. Rather, “democracy” is defined and shaped by the geostrategic interests of, in this context, Western powers. Egypt, by virtue of being the United States’ largest export destination is clearly America’s ally notwithstanding the autocratic antecedents of el-Sissi.

There are other examples, where coup d’états have coincided with the geostrategic interests of Western powers and the niceties of “democracy” have been completely ignored or kicked into the long grass: “for the greater good”, “in the wider interests of peace and security”, “because it is business as usual and that’s what the local people want” and other diplomatic codes for supporting a new political dispensation whether by a military takeover or popular uprising.

Francophone Congo’s first democratically elected leftist leader, Patrice Lumumba, was assassinated in a coup d’état facilitated by Joseph Mobutu, later Mobutu Sese Seko, on January 17, 1961, with proactive American assistance. Mobutu was to rule Congo (now Zaire) for 32 years from 1965 until his death in 1997. Throughout his ruthless dictatorship, Mobutu received economic, diplomatic and military support from France, Belgium and United States; in part, to reward his efforts for blunting communist incursions into Zaire. In short, Western powers, saw nothing wrong with Mobutu’s autocratic regime because there was a coalescence of mutually beneficial strategic interests.

50 years ago in 1973, the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende was toppled in a military coup d’état led by General Augusto Pinochet, which ultimately claimed Allende’s life! The United States actively supported the Chilean coup and the brutal Pinochet dictatorship. Only this year, 2023, declassified United States documents established that then President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, were not only aware of the coup, but had branded Salvador Allende as a dangerous communist. Again, it suited the United States’ national interests to abandon the popular democratic will of the Chilean people for a favoured military dictator, Augusto Pinochet.

In 2019, Bolivia’s democratically elected leftist leader, Evo Morales, was removed from office in what he was to describe as a “coup”, but which the United States under then Trump Presidency affirmed thus: “Morales’s departure preserves democracy”. Morales had been in office for 13 years since 2006. Yet again, the Bolivian “coup” or “departure” or “removal” served United States geostrategic interests in upending a leftist regime.

Most recently, is the Gabonese coup of August 30, 2023 led by General Brice Oligui. The coup toppled the 56-year-old dynastic rule of the Bongo family since 1967, upending Ali Bongo Ondimba’s regime. And whilst there have been widespread condemnations from the African Union and Western powers, there appears to be very little appetite for any military invasion to restore Bongo to power. Again, Western powers, clearly see scant strategic benefit to commit forces and resources to restore Ali Bongo to power.

James Miller, in his treatise, Can Democracy Work (2018), opined that “we would do better to explore new ways to foster a tolerant ethos that accepts, and can acknowledge, that there are many incompatible forms of life and forms of politics, not always directly democratic or participatory, in which humans can flourish”. The take away from this is that military coup d’états are well and truly back especially in francophone, not anglophone, Africa, and Western powers will prioritize animus, or support, for those regimes based upon a carefully calibrated assessment of their strategic interests.

The question for anglophone Nigeria is this: How far should it go in its aspiration to restore Bazoum as Nigerien military leader in concert with Western powers? The answer surely must be, that diplomatic pressure, not military pressure, should continue to be applied as this strategically aligns with Nigeria’s Afrocentric foreign policy focus.

That focus will be impeded by belligerence against its northern neighbour Niger: it will not work! Besides, Nigeria is grappling with its own security challenges, not least the ethno-religious terrorism war advanced by non-state actors, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives; displaced over 2 million people; and a myriad of socio-economic complexities including the removal of the fuel subsidy, wage stagflation and crippling debt repayments.

Therefore, Nigeria, and indeed, Africa, must learn sensible lessons, not the reverse, from “Teacher” and act in their own geostrategic interests.
Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria.