Since assuming power, the military leaderships in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have consistently centered their political discourse on a decisive break from the established regional order and a strong denunciation of traditional international partners. The subsequent formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) stands as a direct manifestation of this strategic shift, aiming to redefine alliances and assert national sovereignty.
However, three years following the initial coups, a clear reality has emerged: security challenges continue unabated, economies remain under significant strain, and public expectations persist at a high level. In this complex environment, the dominant political narrative increasingly leans on identifying external adversaries rather than presenting a concrete assessment of domestic policy outcomes.
A sovereignty defined by political project
The sovereignist rhetoric championed by the AES has resonated considerably with segments of public opinion across the Sahel. After years of frustration stemming from persistent insecurity and a perceived ineffectiveness of certain international collaborations, the concept of fully reclaiming control over diplomatic and military decisions found fertile ground.
Nevertheless, true sovereignty is not solely measured by the repudiation of agreements or the change of allies. More fundamentally, it is assessed by a state’s capacity to guarantee the safety of its citizens, foster job creation, attract investment, ensure efficient public services, and sustainably elevate the living standards of its population.
On these crucial indicators, formidable challenges continue to loom.
The constant temptation of the scapegoat
When an administration struggles to deliver rapid, tangible results, political communication frequently becomes a vital tool for mobilization.
In the context of the AES, criticisms directed at certain neighboring nations or regional organizations occupy a prominent position in public discourse. Côte d’Ivoire, for instance, is frequently portrayed among states considered hostile actors or conduits for foreign interests.
While this strategy can offer immediate political advantages, such as fostering unity around the leadership by identifying a common adversary, it also carries several inherent limitations.
Firstly, it tends to divert public debate away from the daily concerns of the populace: pervasive insecurity, high youth unemployment, rising living costs, difficulties in accessing education, and inadequate infrastructure.
Secondly, it risks fueling unnecessary diplomatic tensions between countries whose economies and populations remain deeply interconnected.
Finally, it can gradually diminish the space for democratic discourse by equating any internal criticism with support for perceived external enemies.
Côte d’Ivoire prioritizes diplomatic continuity
Amidst ongoing regional tensions, Côte d’Ivoire consistently maintains a diplomatic stance rooted in dialogue and stability.
This approach is deeply embedded in a longstanding tradition inspired by the policies of Félix Houphouët-Boigny, characterized by mediation, economic cooperation, and the pursuit of consensus.
Despite occasional verbal attacks, Abidjan generally opts to avoid escalation. This strategic choice is driven by both diplomatic considerations and significant economic interests.
Côte d’Ivoire remains a primary commercial outlet for Sahelian nations. Its port infrastructure serves as a strategic gateway for imports and exports for several landlocked states. Trade, private investments, and the movement of people forge an interdependence that political rhetoric cannot easily erase.
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 incur human and economic consequences far exceeding immediate political considerations.
Diplomatic rupture’s economic ramifications
The strategy of confrontation also carries an economic cost that is often underestimated.
Regional tensions can impede investments, complicate trade flows, elevate logistical expenses, and diminish the attractiveness of affected countries to international investors.
Political uncertainty typically represents a major risk factor for businesses.
In economies already weakened by security challenges, a proliferation of diplomatic crises can thus exacerbate financing difficulties, slow job creation, and depress economic growth.
The precarious gamble of new partners
Another cornerstone of the AES’s strategy involves diversifying international alliances, notably through a pronounced rapprochement with Russia.
While diversifying partnerships is an acknowledged sovereign right of 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, a lack of productive investment, rural poverty, or territorial governance.
The inherent risk, then, is to merely replace one form of dependence with another without addressing the underlying causes of the challenges faced.
Genuine strategic autonomy primarily necessitates the strengthening of national institutions, the professionalization of security forces, an improved business climate, economic diversification, and substantial investment in human capital.
Ubiquitous communication, awaited results
The authorities of the AES heavily emphasize political communication centered on sovereignty, resistance, and national reconquest.
While such communication can bolster patriotic sentiment, it cannot sustainably substitute for the tangible results expected by the populace.
Citizens primarily evaluate their leaders based on concrete criteria:
- a sustained 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 term, these indicators will hold more weight than slogans or communication campaigns.
West Africa requires cooperation more than fragmentation
Recent history across West Africa clearly illustrates that the region’s major challenges—terrorism, cross-border crime, migration, climate change, food security, and economic development—transcend national borders significantly.
No single state can confront these multifaceted challenges in isolation.
Regional cooperation, therefore, remains an indispensable lever, whether pursued within existing organizations or through novel partnership frameworks.
Transforming neighbors like Côte d’Ivoire into permanent adversaries risks further weakening 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 undoubtedly resonates with the genuine aspirations of a portion of the population.
However, a mere rupture does not, in itself, constitute a comprehensive public policy.
Ultimately, the credibility of the AES will be measured less by its sovereignist pronouncements and more by its capacity to concretely 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 the ability of its leaders to produce tangible results, restore citizen trust, and transform regional dialogue into a tool for stability rather than a perpetual arena for confrontation.
