The recent visit to Ouagadougou by Lansana Kouyaté, mediator of the ECOWAS for the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), has reignited focus on regional diplomacy. In discussions with Captain Ibrahim Traoré, the envoy underscored the necessity of cooperation, stressing an undeniable geographical and human reality: political decrees cannot sever ties between neighboring peoples.
The regional bloc’s pragmatic approach shines in its realism, yet it collides with deep-seated skepticism—a skepticism rooted in decades of unfulfilled commitments by military regimes accustomed to disregarding their word.
Why dialogue matters: economic survival over confrontation
Dismissing the hand of friendship extended by ECOWAS would be shortsighted. By prioritizing dialogue over futile confrontation, the West African organization demonstrates political maturity that the region desperately needs.
The bloc’s reasoning is sound:
- Humanitarian lifelines: Over 70% of trade for landlocked Sahel nations like Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger flows through coastal ports of ECOWAS member states. Severing these connections would cripple populations already struggling under terrorism and poverty. Punishing civilians for the actions of their leaders is not an option the bloc will entertain.
- Terrorism’s disregard for borders: Jihadist groups operate beyond the constraints of the AES or ECOWAS treaties. Combating insecurity without a unified, cross-border strategy is a military folly. ECOWAS seeks to salvage what remains of regional security cooperation.
Yet this diplomacy of common sense harbors a critical flaw: a fundamental imbalance in good faith among negotiators.
The poison of broken trust: a system built on broken promises
While ECOWAS’s intentions are commendable, its optimism may be misplaced. Historical and recent evidence reveals a pattern among the military-led governments of the AES: a history of unkept promises, both to the international community and their own citizens.
The timeline speaks volumes. From Mali to Burkina Faso, the proposed transitions were initially set to last 18 to 24 months. Today, electoral timelines have been unilaterally discarded, postponing indefinitely any return to constitutional order under the guise of security imperatives.
International agreements: a shifting foundation
ECOWAS has learned the hard way. Agreements inked in Bamako or Ouagadougou were later abandoned within months, justified by the rhetoric of “reclaimed sovereignty.” Regional integration treaties, decades in the making, were torn apart to appease populist narratives. Negotiating “exemplary cooperation” with partners who treat international law as optional is akin to building on shifting sands.
A shattered social contract
The betrayal cuts deeper at home. The juntas of the AES, once promising to restore security and rebuild the state, now stand accused of:
- Suspension of political parties and suffocation of civil society.
- Crackdowns on independent media and persecution of dissenting voices under the banner of “patriotic duty.”
- Failure to curb violence despite shifting geopolitical alliances.
In essence, the most basic duty of any state—to protect its citizens while upholding fundamental freedoms—is being systematically violated.
Dialogue with accountability
ECOWAS is justified in pursuing dialogue to avert a chaotic rupture. Preserving technical and economic bridges is a survival imperative for the subregion.
However, vigilance is non-negotiable. The regional bloc cannot afford to legitimize de facto situations or grant international recognition to regimes that exploit negotiation periods solely to consolidate personal power. Dialogue is essential—but only if ECOWAS demands tangible, binding guarantees. Without such conditions, this mediation will merely perpetuate a familiar cycle: hollow promises followed by inevitable betrayal.
