The Sahel states alliance: navigating a strategy of rupture and its inherent challenges

Since assuming power, the military administrations in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have anchored their political discourse on a decisive break from the established regional order and a sharp denunciation of traditional partners. The formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) stands as a direct manifestation of this strategic pivot, aiming to redefine alliances and assert national sovereignty.

However, three years following the initial coups, a clear reality emerges: security challenges persist unabated, economies remain under considerable strain, and the public’s expectations largely go unmet. Within this challenging environment, the prevailing political narrative increasingly relies on identifying external adversaries rather than showcasing concrete achievements in public policy.

A sovereignty project

The sovereignist rhetoric championed by the AES has resonated with a segment of the Sahelian populace. After years marked by persistent insecurity and a perceived ineffectiveness of certain international collaborations, the concept of fully reclaiming control over diplomatic and military decisions found fertile ground among citizens.

Nevertheless, true sovereignty is not solely measured by the repudiation of agreements or the alteration of alliances. Its genuine measure lies in a state’s capacity to safeguard its citizens, generate employment, attract investment, deliver efficient public services, and sustainably improve the living conditions of its population.

On these critical indicators, formidable challenges continue to loom large.

The persistent appeal of the scapegoat

When an administration struggles to deliver rapid, tangible results, political communication often becomes a vital tool for mobilization.

In the context of the AES, criticisms directed at certain neighboring countries or regional organizations feature prominently in public discourse. Côte d’Ivoire, for instance, is frequently portrayed as a hostile actor or a conduit for foreign interests.

This tactic can offer immediate political benefits, fostering unity around the leadership by identifying a common foe. Yet, it also carries several inherent limitations.

Firstly, it tends to divert attention from the daily concerns of the populace: pervasive insecurity, youth unemployment, rising living costs, inadequate access to education, and insufficient infrastructure.

Secondly, it risks exacerbating unnecessary diplomatic tensions between nations whose economies and populations remain deeply interconnected.

Finally, it can gradually constrict the space for democratic debate, equating any internal critique with support for external adversaries.

Côte d’Ivoire champions diplomatic continuity

Amidst escalating regional tensions, Côte d’Ivoire consistently maintains a diplomatic posture rooted in dialogue and stability.

This approach draws from a long-standing tradition inspired by Félix Houphouët-Boigny’s policy, which prioritized mediation, economic cooperation, and consensus-building.

Despite occasional verbal attacks, Abidjan generally opts against escalation. This strategic choice is driven by both diplomatic considerations and economic imperatives.

Côte d’Ivoire remains a primary commercial outlet for Sahelian nations. Its port serves as a vital strategic infrastructure for the imports and exports of several landlocked states. Commercial exchanges, private investments, and the movement of people forge an interdependence that no political rhetoric can easily dismantle.

Millions of citizens from Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger reside, work, or operate businesses in Côte d’Ivoire. A sustained deterioration of bilateral relations would therefore unleash human and economic consequences far exceeding immediate political considerations.

Economic repercussions of diplomatic rupture

A strategy of confrontation also carries an often-underestimated economic cost.

Regional tensions can impede investments, complicate trade flows, inflate logistical expenses, and diminish the attractiveness of affected countries to international investors.

Political uncertainty invariably acts as a significant risk factor for businesses.

In economies already weakened by security challenges, a proliferation of diplomatic crises can thus intensify financing difficulties, slow job creation, and depress economic growth.

The risky gamble on new partners

Another cornerstone of the AES strategy involves diversifying international alliances, notably through a pronounced rapprochement with Russia.

While diversifying partnerships is a recognized sovereign right for all states, this diversification does not automatically guarantee economic or security improvements.

International experience demonstrates that no single external partner can, by itself, resolve structural issues such as weak institutions, insufficient productive investments, rural poverty, or territorial governance.

The inherent risk, therefore, is merely to replace one form of dependency with another, without addressing the underlying causes of the difficulties encountered.

Genuine strategic autonomy primarily necessitates strengthening national institutions, professionalizing security forces, improving the business climate, diversifying the economy, and investing in human capital.

Ubiquitous communication, anticipated results

The AES authorities heavily emphasize political communication centered on sovereignty, resistance, and national reconquest.

While this communication can bolster patriotic sentiment, it cannot sustainably substitute for the concrete results demanded by the populations.

Citizens primarily evaluate their leaders based on tangible criteria:

• A sustainable improvement in security;
• A reduction in the cost of living;
• Employment opportunities for young people;
• Functional schools and health centers;
• Modern infrastructure;
• Inclusive economic growth.

In the long run, these indicators will hold more weight than slogans or communication campaigns.

West Africa’s imperative for cooperation over division

Recent West African history underscores that the region’s major challenges—terrorism, transnational crime, migration, climate change, food security, and economic development—transcend national borders.

No single state can confront these challenges in isolation.

Regional cooperation thus remains an indispensable lever, whether exercised within existing organizations or through novel partnership frameworks.

Transforming neighbors like Côte d’Ivoire into permanent adversaries risks further destabilizing a region already grappling with multiple crises.

Conclusion

The Alliance of Sahel States emerged from a desire to break away from a model its leaders deemed ineffective. This ambition resonates with genuine aspirations among a segment of the population.

However, a rupture in itself does not constitute a public policy.

Ultimately, the credibility of the AES will be measured less by its sovereignist pronouncements than by its capacity to tangibly enhance security, revitalize the economy, safeguard public liberties, and strengthen regional cooperation.

The future of the Sahel will depend less on assigning blame to external parties and more on its leaders’ ability to produce tangible results, restore citizen trust, and transform regional dialogue into a tool for stability rather than a perpetual arena for confrontation.