₦airaland Forum

Appreciate the clarification (you confirmed the main point I was trying to make: the 1981 protocol was adopted by ECOWAS, not ECOMOG), and I also respect the fact that you actually took the time to go through the ’93 and ’99 protocols.

Just to be clear though, my argument wasn’t that the '81 protocol was revoked — it obviously still exists on paper. My point is that it is NOT as relevant in practise today as the '93 and '99 are. And my rationale is that the dominant (if not sole) posture/orientation of ECOWAS's military apparatus today is NOT about defending member states from external invasion. Frankly, I'd almost say that's completely off the table - but I'll leave a little room for discussion.

Also, the fact that “territorial integrity” and "political independence" are mentioned as principles doesn’t automatically mean that military force is the default way of enforcing them. Sure, there are clauses that can be interpreted as allowing for mutual defense — but interpretation is not the same as actual policy or practice. We can all interpret these clauses and protocols differently, but the general fact remains that external defense is simply NOT what ECOWAS does - or is likely to do for that matter - even if the paperwork allows for it.

That said, I agree with you that "present ECOWAS, regardless of the mutual defence agreement, is unlikely to mount defence for a member state".

Regarding the B. Faso situation: on the issue of military governments, I understand that they come with very serious downsides, especially when it comes to everyday freedoms. However, I also don’t think they’re 100% negative across the board. Like any form of government, I'd say they can play a role - especially in transitional phases/capacities. I actually believe that there are moments in a nation’s life where a non-traditional government might help reset the system.

So, if this junta in Faso has a transition plan, and if they’re genuinely popular at home and even among the diaspora, I'd argue that the best move is to watch how it unfolds. There’s a time for force - but this might not be it - especially when the Burkinabes themselves don’t seem to be asking for that (at least it seems so to me).

cc obedience4

Your claim "....if member states faced a threat from an external power, ECOMOG has a clause/protocol for mutual defence" is not accurate. The protocol I think you might be referring to would be the 1981 ECOWAS Protocol on Mutual Assistance in Defence; however, it was adopted by ECOWAS states—not ECOMOG and it led to the establishment of the AAFC (Allied Armed Force of the Community) concept.

ECOMOG wasn't created until 1990 (which was approx. 10 years later). Also, I guess you know that ECOMOG no longer exists. Its operations ended '99/2000 when it withdrew from Liberia. What the ECOWAS has today is the ESF i.e ECOWAS Standby Force.

While ECOWAS's scope includes a military role as demonstrated in its interventions in Ivory coast (ECOMICI), Gambia (ECOMIG) etc. This role DOES NOT include a mutual defense mandate - at least not in a NATO-style way. There's no binding legal basis/obligation for a collective military action against an invading country. The closest thing it now has to a mutual defense treaty would be the 25th article of the 1999 protocol which allows it to intervene in event of a threat to the security of a member state by armed groups or insurgents (this description is too vague and doesn't clearly cover conventional interstate aggression).

Yes, ECOWAS still technically has the 1981 protocol which makes provision for a mutual military Assistance. However, it is functionally obsolete and It is now superseded in relevance by the Revised treaty of 1993 + the 1999 protocol which both reoriented ECOWAS toward internal stability, not external defense. Basically, "mutual defense" has now evolved to mean the establishment of the ECOWAS standby force (ESF). Problem however is that the ESF (which has since become the primary vehicle for ECOWAS security interventions including those initially envisioned by the 1981 protocol) does not have the mandate to fight off an invading country. And frankly, even if it did have such mandate, i wouldn't bet on it.

P.S: *its predecessors - ECOMOG and co. notably did nothing during the Bakassi Peninsula conflict (between NG & Camerron). So, i'm inclined to expect similar actions inaction from their successor.

cc obedience4

nigeriansamurai:
of course you and i know that american companies have a higher standard in terms of manufacuring standard (example the beoing company). It may not be the best but it doesnt mean the chinese donot produce quality products. China produces a large range of products in terms of various factors including quality. This helps them to adapt to specific demands, markets and budgets... Many of the products you call american products, are actually manufactured in China for american companies, with American standard. If you dont understand i can explain better.

Okay, I understand you. Thanks.
Are you still in the solar business (buying and installing) ?

nigeriansamurai:
a few month ago i said that china is taking over in manufacturing and sales of morden tech, like solar technology, robotics and even automobile... And Neoslavery activists wanted to chew my head off... Sometime ago i did a middle man deal, to buy and install solar panels. I realised american batteries and panels are damn expensive compared to Chinese ones. At the dyin miunite i had to cancel an old order, to buy from Alibaba. Even after the shipping and logistics i made alot of cash, cost was cut for all parties.. Very soon chinese phones, computers and other will properly dominate the world market... When this happens it would be furkin difficult for that trend to change. If you know how chinese products flood the market and get addictive you'll understand...

In your unbiased opinion, whose companies manufacture better(more durable and efficient) solar panels and batteries - American or Chinese?