Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

PROSPECTS OF A SUB-REGIONAL APPROACH TO PREVENTING

CONFLICT AND STATE FRAGILITY IN WEST AFRICA

Okey Uzoechina i

1. Introduction

1.1 Conceptual Clarification

D ue to increased focus on dysfunctional states since the 9/11 attacks, various development
agencies, academic think-tanks, policy makers, aid donors, government departments and
intergovernmental organizations have sought to better understand the phenomenon of state
fragility in order to develop policies to address it. Sadly, this has led to a muddling up of the
concept resulting in what might now be described as terminological chaos. Thus, adjectives like
weak, failing, failed, collapsed, vulnerable, quasi, recovering, inter alia, have been used to describe
different degrees of fragility.1 Different sets of indicators, assessment criteria and frameworks
used by different agencies have, on an operational level, resulted in policy incoherence. In this
paper, the term ―state fragility‖ is used in a generic sense as a continuum of various stages of
state weakness. Fragile states are therefore states that have weak institutions of governance
thereby making them precarious in their capacity to deliver public goods and services to their
citizens, and lacking resilience in the face of conflict or political instability. Locating the discourse
in the West African context, there appears to be a strong, mutually reinforcing link between state
fragility and conflict.2 While both terms are not coterminous, this regional dynamic informs the
emphasis on conflict as both a driver and a product of fragility in this paper. Although sub-
regional security challenges, history and geopolitical conflict complexes may be similar, there can
be no template of policies for fragile states: what works for Liberia may not work in Nigeria—
and may in fact be counter-productive. This makes it all the more tricky to adopt an overarching
sub-regional strategy for preventing conflict or reducing state fragility.

1
In an attempted taxonomy of failed states, Jean-Germain Gros placed them in five categories: anarchic,
phantom, anaemic, captured, and aborted. See: Gros (1996)
2
However, it has been argued that not all states experiencing conflict are fragile and not all fragile states are
experiencing conflict. See: Grono (2007)

1
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) which was established in 1975 to
foster economic cooperation and development clearly lacked an integrated security mandate until
the ad hoc Ceasefire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) was deployed in response to the carnage in
Liberia in 1995. It had become apparent that the insecurity and endemic instability in the sub-
region was a major impediment to integration and development. ECOWAS‘ defence and security
mandate therefore developed in response to emerging threats and concerns as add-ons to the
original treaty in supplementary protocols and defence pacts.3 With the latest add-on to the
ECOWAS Peace and Security Architecture, namely the adoption of the ECOWAS Conflict
Prevention Framework (ECPF) in January 2008,4 conflict prevention is now the buzzword in
ECOWAS peace and security policy. The ECPF is quite robust in scope given that it envisages
both operational conflict prevention—aimed to avert an impending or resolve an immediate
crisis—and structural conflict prevention—addressing the root causes of state fragility in order
to prevent the re-emergence of conflict. Practically, this policy repositioning may still be far from
sounding the death knell to the security challenges that plague the sub-region. The crux of this
paper is a quest to address—or redefine—this policy challenge.

1.2 Book Map: Approach and Organization

Apparently, the political history,5 political economy,6 neo-classical economics7 and realpolitik8
approaches to the study of state fragility all address different fragments of the problem, often
leading to misleading and reductionist explanations, and deficient policies. This paper adopts a
somewhat eclectic but context-specific approach. The rest of the paper is structured into three
parts. The next part examines the rationale for and some challenges that beset international
engagement in fragile states, and envisages an increased role for ECOWAS—a middleman in the
global peace and security structure—in fostering better coordination between the development

3
Notably, the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS of 1993, and the Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict
Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security (the Mechanism) of 1999. The Mechanism
now supersedes the Protocol on Mutual Assistance in Defence 1981 and the Protocol on Non-Aggression 1978.
4
The ECPF aims to operationalize the conflict prevention limb of the Mechanism.
5
Huntington (1971); Herbst (1996); Mayall (2005)
6
Keen (1998); Menkhaus (2003); Reno (2006); Duffield (2001); Cramer (2006)
7
Collier (2003); Picciotto, et al. (2005)
8
Crocker (2003); Krasner & Pascual (2005); Ellis (2005)

2
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

community and ECOWAS member states. The second part argues for an integrated sub-regional
approach to conflict prevention, pointing out some challenges and opportunities in the system
established under the pivotal Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention,
Resolution, Management, Peacekeeping and Security, 1999 (the Mechanism) and the ECPF. The
concluding part draws on the lessons learnt and incorporates policy recommendations as next
steps for the ECPF.

2. Engaging with Fragile States: The Problem with Reaction

2.1 Why Engage with Fragile States?

Per se, fragile states lack either the capacity or the political will—or both—to fix the hydra-
headed problems that beleaguer them. There now appears to be a consensus in the security and
development field that the rest of the world cannot just sit back and do nothing.9 Indeed, the
cost of doing nothing might be more than the cost of intervention. The regional conflict
complexes manifested in West Africa and the Great Lakes show that state fragility can be
infectious. As aptly painted by Paul Collier, the effects of internal conflict emanating from state
fragility ripples out in three concentric circles:

The first ripple is within the country: most of the victims are children and other
noncombatants. The second ripple is the region: neighbouring countries suffer
reduced incomes and increased disease. The third ripple is global: civil war generates
territory outside the control of any recognized government, and such territories have
become the epicenters of crime and disease.10

However, the nature and purpose of intervention are as important as—and even more politically
sensitive than—the commitment to intervene. Working with and in fragile states is costly, risky,
and poses difficult policy dilemmas. Responses usually bear some humanitarian, security or
developmental impetus, or some admixture of varying proportions of each. However, ad hoc
humanitarian responses in the face of crisis do not address the twin pillars of statehood: capacity
and resilience.

9
DfID (2005), p. 5; Collier (2003), p. 6
10
Collier (2003), pp. ix-x

3
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

2.2 Supply-Side (Donors) versus Demand-Side (Recipients) Coordination

In a 1999 study, the Centre for Defence Studies, King‘s College London, identified five entities
that ―need to be coordinated in order for future responses to complex emergencies to be
successful‖:11 donor governments, multilateral agencies, NGOs, military establishments, and the
corporate sector. With the merging of security and development in the mid-1990s, cross-cutting
linkages and networks uniting these entities in their pursuit of liberal peace have been
consolidated.12 Within donor countries, there is a growing recognition that development agencies
must join up with other departments with comparative advantages and unique capabilities,
particularly diplomatic and defence ministries, in designing strategies for engagement in fragile
states.13 This is the raison d'être for the now attractive ―whole-of-government‖ approach.14
Although policy coherence and coordination of operations within and among these entities
continue to be problematic, little attention has been paid to coordinating the recipients. The
paradox is that donors often end up supplying what is not in priority demand in recipient states.

It is commonsensical that planning for success should involve the subjects—the fragile states—
from the early stages. However, this neglect indicates that fragile states are seen only as the
problem, but not as part of the solution. At the sub-regional level, the recently adopted ECPF
attempts to fill this gap by envisaging cooperation with development partners based on the
principles of promotion and consolidation of human security; priority-driven programming;
sustainability; subsidiarity and complementarity; local ownership, local context and sound
analysis; transparency, accountability, mutual respect and trust.15 Such cooperation aims at
building synergy for coordinated interventions in conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
Furthermore, the ECPF lays down guidelines for internal cooperation across all departments and
institutions of ECOWAS, and for cooperation between ECOWAS and civil society
organizations, member states, AU and the UN. Conceptually, there can be no better articulation
of the whole-of-government—nay, whole-of-governance—approach.

11
Von Hippel (1999), p. 151
12
Duffield (2001), pp. 50-74. Duffield also notes the omission of another important community from this list:
academics. See: Duffield (2001), p. 52
13
Such “joined-up” approach is also referred to as 3D—development, diplomacy, and defence.
14
Patrick & Brown (2007), pp. 2-3
15
See: § 109-ff., ECPF

4
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

Adopting an integrated sub-regional approach would also help overcome the donor-recipient
coordination challenge at the level of individual states if ECOWAS—progressively assuming its
supranational authority—can act as a go-between in streamlining, implementing and monitoring
donor programmes in member states. The ECOWAS Peace Fund constitutes a common basket
for resource mobilization from its ―development partners‖ to support its conflict prevention and
peacebuilding initiatives. If this facilitating role is enhanced and complemented by bottom-up
priority-setting by peace constituencies in member states, the issues of coherence, legitimacy,
accountability, knowledge of local context and mutual trust might be put to rest. This is a good
sign, but the workability of this concept is yet to be put to the test.

2.3 New Rules of Engagement: Breaking the “Fragility Trap”

There is no easy way out. Standard development practice needs to be adapted to the realities of
state fragility and be flexible enough to align with local priorities. This would entail adopting the
―good enough‖ governance approach which typically implies the lack of a capable and/or
legitimate state. Donors are still caught up in the dilemma of channelling aid through NGOs and
other parallel structures in a bid to be seen to be apolitical, especially where the recipient state is
unresponsive and lacks legitimacy, or channelling aid through existing but weak government
structures in order to bolster state institutions. Whatever the preference, the guiding principle
should be not to leave a state worse off than it was before the intervention. While it would be
unduly philistine to attempt to explain away the complex phenomenon of state fragility as a
―trap‖ in the sense of an inescapable downward spiralling state of affairs, there is no doubt that
weak institutions of governance predispose a state to political instability and conflict, which if
not well managed further weakens a state‘s capacity and resilience. However, the fixation with
the manifestations of fragility (political instability and conflict) will be overcome if planners of
the ―rescue missions‖ would also address the interests of not-so-visible but adaptive informal
systems, the private sector, and the case-sensitive structural causes of fragility.

An aspect of state fragility which is not sufficiently explained by the notion of ―traps‖ is bad
government.16 The vagary of this human element remains a Gordian knot to the security and
development community. It is perplexing that some governments which started out with the
promise of a better future for their people have ended up doing the exact opposite. Most fragile
states are poorly governed states, often marked by gross abuse of civil and political rights, élite
16
See: Easterly (2006), pp. 117-118

5
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

manipulation, corruption, lack of accountability, natural resource predation, relative deprivation

and horizontal inequalities, and ethnic nationalism. The situation is further complicated by the
donor policy of channelling aid through governments. It is double tragedy that the modest aid
that trickles down to fragile states often ends up in the hands of unaccountable governments.
Could it be that ―the aid agencies need the poor-country government, even a bad government, to
fill the role of aid recipient to keep money flowing‖?17

Curiously, the quest for a panacea to state fragility may appear to be counterintuitive to the
rapidly expanding security and development industry,18 but a lot more will be achieved if weak
but willing states are empowered to set their own priorities and drive their developmental
process. Resilience is an appurtenance of legitimacy and will only come in due course as the
organic link between the state and society is strengthened, and not with the cobbling together
and instruction of military and police forces in quick-fix security sector reform processes as
happened in the case of DynCorp in Liberia.19

3. Moving From Reaction to Prevention

3.1 Conflict Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) identified the
responsibility to prevent as being of foremost importance in its report, The Responsibility to Protect
(R2P). However, scholarly and policy attention has been focused mainly on the concept's
reaction component rather than on its prevention component.20 Prevention of deadly conflict
is—as with all other aspects of the R2P—first and foremost the responsibility of individual
sovereign states.21 Then, failing prevention and containment within a state‘s juridical borders, the
UN Security Council bears responsibility for international (global) peace and security, including
the sanctioning of intervention in ―internationalized‖ internal conflicts. Given that the failure of

17
Easterly (2006), p. 137
18
“Industry” is used here for want of a better word. Duffield refers to this as “liberal strategic complexes”. See:
Duffield (2001), p. 50. Cf.: Cooper & Pugh (2002), pp. 57-58
19
This is not to suggest that SSR does not play a vital role in state-building, but the manner in which such
processes have been undertaken in some post-conflict states leaves much to be desired.
20
Bellamy (2008), p. 135; Cf.: § 41 (a), ECPF
21
Gareth, et al. (2001), p. 19

6
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

conflict prevention bears egregious international consequences, it is therefore not surprising that
numerous legal and policy frameworks on both operational and structural conflict prevention
have been developed by regional and intergovernmental organizations.

Among other things, the UN Department of Political Affairs works to ensure coherence
between the different departments and agencies of the UN through the Inter-Departmental
Framework for Coordination on Early Warning and Preventive Action. At the regional level,
Article 4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU), 2000 articulates a commitment to
conflict prevention and the responsibility to protect potential victims of war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide. The Protocol on the Establishment of the Peace and Security
Council of the AU creates a number of conflict prevention instruments: the Panel of the Wise,
the African Continental Early Warning System, the African Standby Force, and the Common
African Defence and Security Policy. At the sub-regional level, the ECOWAS Mechanism—and
the recently adopted ECPF aimed at making the Mechanism operational through a coherent,
strategic approach—also creates organs parallel to those at the continental tier.

But policy frameworks alone have not prevented fragile states from plunging into conflict. As
noted by the ICISS:

For the effective prevention of conflict... three essential conditions have to be met.
First, there has to be knowledge of the fragility of the situation and the risks
associated with it – so called ―early warning.‖ Second, there has to be understanding
of the policy measures available that are capable of making a difference – the so-
called ―preventive toolbox.‖ And third, there has to be, as always, the willingness to
apply those measures – the issue of ―political will‖.22

3.2 Good Neighbourhood Principle:23 The Imperative of a Sub-Regional Approach

The international security architecture can be pictured as a model of four concentric circles. It
follows naturally that if there is a toxic leak in the innermost circle, it will diffuse into and
contaminate its surrounding environment. In real life, this is a geopolitical complex: the national
is a subset of the sub-regional; the sub-regional is a subset of the regional (continental); which in

22
Ibid., p. 20
23
Article 4(e), ECOWAS Revised Treaty

7
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

turn is a subset of the global. But human groupings are not inanimate circles and so take self-
preservative measures when faced with a ―toxic leak‖. When states become fragile—and as a
result lack the capacity or the political will to remedy their situation—it naturally falls to the sub-
region, which will bear the most direct consequence if nothing is done, to take necessary
remedial measures. Interestingly, a persuasive argument for the adoption of the ECOWAS
Mechanism was that it would be better for the sub-region to retain autonomy over the decision
to intervene rather than let the UN Security Council—with its extreme reluctance to intervene as
witnessed in Rwanda and Sierra Leone—prevent ECOWAS from taking urgent action to
maintain sub-regional stability.24 In the 2003 Declaration on a Sub-Regional Approach to Peace
and Security, The Authority of Heads of State and Government of ECOWAS (the Authority)
reiterated that only a concerted approach can guarantee peace, security and stability in the sub-
region.

Article 33 of the UN Charter acknowledges the comparative advantage of proximity when it

defers to ―regional agencies or arrangements‖ for the pacific settlement of disputes between states,
although the shifting asymmetry of state fragility is now marked by conflict within states.
Furthermore, Article 52 clearly states that nothing in the Charter precludes the existence of
regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of
international peace and security as are appropriate for regional actions, provided that such
actions are consistent with the purpose and principles of the UN. Moving further inwards,
Article 16 of the AU Peace and Security Council Protocol, and the Common Africa Defence and
Security Policy, stress that the sub-regional mechanisms will form the ―building blocks‖ of the
AU‘s peace and security architecture, including the African Standby Force (ASF). This more or
less shifts some responsibility to prevent, resolve and respond to threats to international peace
and security emanating from fragile states to the sub-regions. Today, greater realism informs the
United Nations Office for West Africa‘s (UNOWA) support to ECOWAS on capacity building
for early warning and early response, thus bypassing the intermediate regional level. The rationale
for establishment of UNOWA was ―to bring regional UN activities in the areas of conflict
prevention and peace-building closer to the local realities and needs‖.25 UNOWA, which has
diplomatic presence in Dakar, Senegal, promotes an integrated sub-regional, as opposed to
country-by-country, approach.

24
Adebajo (2002), p. 146. Notably, the UN Security Council still retains the mandate to invoke or authorize any
peace enforcement action against a country pursuant to Article 53, Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
25
UN, The UN Office for West Africa, p. 1 @ http://www.un.org/unowa/unowa/bckgrdnew.pdf, last accessed
10 August 2008.

8
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

There are numerous practical reasons to justify an integrated sub-regional approach to the
prevention of state fragility. Conflict spillovers from bad neighbours bear grave security and
development implications that affect entire regions: refugee flows and the spread of disease,
proliferation of weapons, violence and transnational crime, and the like. The invasion of Sierra
Leone by the rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in the first half of 1991 has been
described as ―a belligerent strain of virus from neighbouring Liberia‖,26 which would not have
happened without the support of the architect of the Liberian war, Charles Taylor. Guinean and
Nigerian troops joined forces with the Sierra Leonean government to squelch the insurgency,
ostensibly to avoid the contagion of the war and its ripple effects. Regional dimensions tend to
complicate the conflict continuum, as experienced in the complementary war economies of
Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Cote d‘Ivoire.27 Such dynamic gets even worse
where a country‘s natural resource endowment constitutes a honeypot to its neighbours. As the
diagnosis reveals an essentially sub-regional ailment, the prescription should therefore be a sub-
regional therapy.

4. Conclusion: Policy Recommendations

4.1 Sequencing the Operative Components of the ECPF

Translating policy into action goes beyond merely articulating the policy options in a given
scenario, for instance, enumerating the components of conflict prevention given the security
challenges facing West Africa.28 To make for effective implementation, there is a further need to
simplify and facilitate the administrative process of determining which things need to be done in
every particular situation and in what order they are to be done. Step I is to encapsulate the
components of the ECPF into operational frames. The operational frames will then enable
selective application and prioritization of activities considering the needs and circumstances of
each case. Moreover, given limited human and material resources, every desirable action cannot
be taken in every ailing member state at the same time. Taking a typical conflict escalation—de-
escalation model, the ECPF components should be sequenced thus:

26
Stewart & FitzGerald (2001), p. 156
27
Pugh & Cooper (2004), pp. 103-110
28
See: § 42 ff., ECPF

9
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

 (Operational) Prevention
o Early Warning
o Preventive Diplomacy
 Stabilization
o ECOWAS Standby Force (ESF)
o Practical Disarmament
o Humanitarian Assistance
 Resolution/Peacebuilding
o Crafting Peace Deals
o Reconciliation and Accountability
o Peace Education
 Democratization
o Democracy and Political Governance
o Media
 Reconstruction/Institutional Reform
o Human Rights and Rule of Law
o Security Governance
o Natural Resource Governance
o Women, Peace and Security
o Youth Empowerment
o Cross-border Initiatives

As is, the components under Resolution/Peacebuilding—excepting the last—are not part of the
ECPF. Consideration of post-conflict Reconciliation and Accountability is presently subsumed
under the Human Rights and Rule of Law component,29 thus inadvertently demoting it to a
comparatively low-priority activity. Unsurprisingly, there is a tendency to fixate on organizing
elections immediately after Stabilization to fill vital leadership space in order to avoid anarchic
competition for power. While post-conflict Democratization is a worthy benchmark, it should
always be preceded by Resolution/Peacebuilding in order to avoid operating on and perpetuating
the same conditions that led to the conflict in the first place. West Africa has had its fair share of
lessons learnt from neglecting this all-important transitional phase. Liberia, survivor of a
fourteen-year-long armed conflict, provided a test case for ECOWAS, relapsing into conflict

29
§ 57 (d), ECPF

10
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

after a three-year lull.30 ECOWAS facilitated and shared experience in negotiating the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 18 August 2003 between the Government of Liberia and
the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and the Movement for
Democracy in Liberia (MODEL), with the acquiescence of other parties, interest groups and
peace constituencies.31 Notably, the preamble to the CPA expresses a commitment ―to prevent
the outbreak of future civil conflict in Liberia and the consequences of conflicts‖, and a pledge
―forthwith to settle all past, present and future differences by peaceful and legal means and to
refrain from the threat of, or use of force‖. This experience should be built on and incorporated
into the ECPF. An important element in crafting peace deals is—only to the extent achievable—
using it as a constructive tool for social reconfiguration (to address the root causes of conflict)
and balancing of power structures (to promote fair competition for political power). National
reconciliation and accountability for violation of human rights and international humanitarian
law should also be considered. As with other activities, the choice of method for pursuing this
end should be left to the people of the state concerned.32 Also, the culture of peace (Peace
Education) should be mainstreamed into all levels of the society from this phase.

Thus framed, ECOWAS‘ engagement with a weak state (for instance, Ghana or Nigeria) can
then prioritize and clearly sequence Institutional Reform, Democratization, and (Operational)
Prevention; with a failing state (for instance, Côte d‘Ivoire or Guinea Bissau), on (Operational)
Prevention, some elements of Stabilization,33 and Institutional Reform; with a failed but reviving
state (for instance, Liberia or Sierra Leone, depending on the actual stage in post-conflict
reconstruction), on Stabilization, Resolution/Peacebuilding, Democratization, Reconstruction/
Institutional Reform, (Operational) Prevention. Prioritization could be in varying degrees but in
a reinforcing order. Importantly, the frames are not water-tight compartment. Thus, activities
under the frames may be carried out consecutively or concurrently as the case requires. Also
depending on the case and nature of activity, an operational frame or its subsets should be
categorizes as long-term, medium-term, or short-term activity in a clear work plan, and may be
one-off, ad hoc and remedial, periodical, or continuous.

30
The first war lasted from 1989 to 1996; the second from 1999 to 2003.
31
Another uneasy success was the Ouagadougou Peace Accord of 4 March 2007.
32
Liberia preferred a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) over a war crimes tribunal. The CPA considers
general amnesty for human rights violation as an incentive for the warring factions to drop their arms. Sierra
Leone adopted a two-pronged process: a hybrid international-national court, in addition to a TRC.
33
For instance, preventive deployment of the ESF as envisaged under § 49 (d), ECPF

11
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

4.2 Peer Review versus Self Review

Weak implementation mechanisms and the absence of any independent sub-regional body for
monitoring member states‘ compliance with their obligations under the Mechanism and the
Supplementary Protocol are glaring. Under the UN treaty system for instance, monitoring states‘
compliance with their international obligations involves three separate but complementary
procedures: state reporting, individual complaints, and independent studies and investigation.34
In contrast, Article 35 of the Supplementary Protocol mandates member states to establish
independent national institutions to report on human rights violations on their territory. This
hybrid reporting/complaints procedure is inchoate and may prove unworkable for several
reasons. The independence of such institutions from political control can only be bolstered with
legal safeguards of tenure of office and independent funding. Where independence is not
guaranteed—and because states are apt to report on their achievements rather than their failures
or non-compliance—permitting self-incriminating reports to the ECOWAS Commission may
prove to be a tall order under the present political climate.35 On an operational level, in the
absence of any provision delegating authority to an expert body, the Office of the President of
the Commission36 will be inundated with reports of all shades of violations from the national
institutions.

Under Chapter II of the Supplementary Protocol on Modalities for Implementation and Sanctions, the
most severe sanction envisaged in the case of coup d’état or massive violation of human rights in a
member state is suspension from all ECOWAS decision-making bodies.37 The efficacy of such
sanction in deterring, much more reversing, the menace of bad government is doubtful. On
closer examination, the Modalities for Implementation and Sanctions partakes of the character of ―peer
review‖ enunciated under the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) by which
African rulers are meant to enforce standards of good governance on one another. But the
effectiveness of collective sanctions could be hampered by the fact that some of the supervisory
Heads of State and Government may not be exculpated from the same indictment on an

34
See for instance: Articles 28 & 40, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; Article 16,
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966; Article 62, African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights.
35
Nigeria’s local experiment with the Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission suffered this fate.
36
Note the difference in nomenclature from the “Executive Secretariat” under the Supplementary Protocol.
37
Article 45(2), Supplementary Protocol. This provision was invoked in the suspension of the Republic of Niger
in October 2009.

12
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

offending state? Besides, the target of collective sanctions should be regime decertification rather
than state decertification. However, there is much room for less forceful but practical modes of
―enforcement‖.38

There is the need to institutionalize a procedure for states to submit periodic reports on the
measures they have taken in fulfillment of their treaty obligations. Such report, if and when
corroborated or contradicted by the independent reports of fact-finding missions, would give a
fuller, more balanced picture and constitute an important source of feedback. Member states‘
reports should be submitted to the Office of the President of the Commission, which will then
mandate an expert committee under the supervision of the Political Affairs, Peace and Security
Commission for consideration and recommendations. Such expert committee should be broadly
constituted in terms of nationality in order to reduce the likelihood of bias and politicization.

Although complementary self review does not offer a foolproof solution, there is a psychological
catch to it: the added responsibility of periodic reporting will keep a state alive to its obligations
and may even make it strive to outperform its neighbours. If this method is adopted, states
would begin to point out areas of need where they require the support and cooperation of
ECOWAS. Because states are more sensitive than is often believed to adverse publicity and the
embarrassment of other governments pointing an accusing finger at them, the publishing of
defaulting states—after an opportunity to remedy their default has been given—would constitute
a check on state behaviour.39 Conversely, institutional inertia, inelegant draftsmanship, and the
apparent lack of the necessary political will by the Authority of Heads of State and Government
of ECOWAS to inject life into the dead letters of the law would result in chronic levels of non-
compliance, which would in turn undermine the broad objective of conflict prevention.

4.3 Supra-nationality versus Sovereignty

The ECOWAS Strategic Vision 2020 seeks to transform the sub-region from an ―ECOWAS of
States‖ into an ―ECOWAS of the Peoples‖.40 This is a futuristic goal which will progressively
transfer the mandate of ECOWAS to the peoples as opposed to states of West Africa, thereby

38
Pursuant to Article 34(1), Supplementary Protocol
39
Needless to say, monitoring compliance has to be matched with each state’s capacity, level of development
and peculiar circumstances.
40
§ 4, ECPF

13
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

seeking to bypass sovereign national walls to make ECOWAS decisions directly applicable in
member states. While this goal has much conceptual appeal, in practical terms, it meets the
challenge of state sovereignty and the corollary principle of non-intervention.41 The ECPF
recognizes this challenge by restating a fundamental limitation in the peace and security mandate
of ECOWAS: that ECOWAS member states bear primary responsibility for peace and security.
However, latitude for future development is provided in the proviso thus: ―the tensions between
sovereignty and supra-nationality, and between regime security and human security, shall be
progressively resolved in favour of supra-nationality and human security respectively‖.42

However, this progressive transformation should be embarked upon cautiously to avoid

potential friction as it would result in further shrinking the sphere of state sovereignty. States—
nay, regimes—in sub-Saharan Africa are not wont to sharing sovereignty. Shrewdly, the Revised
Treaty of ECOWAS avoids any mention of state sovereignty in its Fundamental Principles but
rather emphasizes inter-dependence and good neighbourliness.43 The principle of subsidiarity
and complementarity in ECOWAS‘ relations with member states seeks to strengthen state
capacity rather than supplant state authority.44 However, as experience with external involvement
in fragile states shows, the implementation of such mandate could indeed weaken the very states
they are meant to support if it is not sensitive to the political, social and economic context of the
states. It appears that for now, intrusive measures beyond harmonization, coordination and
facilitation of policies and programmes in member states as envisaged by the Revised Treaty will
likely be rejected.

4.4 Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Strategy

Historical factors, cultural patterns, geophysical character, economic considerations and political
expediency often reinforce the nature of a state‘s fragility. The obvious implication of this
contextual challenge—which is that each case merits sui generis consideration—does not of course
invalidate the search for an overarching sub-regional strategy/framework for the prevention and

41
Article 2(e) & (f), the Mechanism
42
§ 4, ECPF
43
Article 4, ECOWAS Revised Treaty
44
§ 115, ECPF

14
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

reduction of state fragility.45 A sub-regional strategy is not a panacea, but offers a systematic way
to complement tailor-made national efforts at overcoming the multifarious challenges that beset
various states. The ultimate test therefore lies in applying the sub-regional strategy in a way that
would be flexible, case-sensitive, and reflective of the needs of each state. Upholding local
ownership of initiatives involves making the people part of the process of finding a solution to
their problems by adopting a grassroots and inclusive approach, rather than handing down to
them proposed solutions to what their problems are believed to be. Such process would engage
with local stakeholders both within and outside the institutions of government. By building trust,
the process will in the end make any devised formulae credible in the eyes of the people, ensure
legitimacy in implementing the policies, and make the people more committed to meeting goals
which they were more or less involved in setting.

The Mechanism and the ECPF form a commendable blueprint for addressing the peril of state
fragility in West Africa. Hopefully, a meeting point between the top-down sub-regional strategy
and a bottom-up local ownership will be the proposed four-year ECOWAS Plan of Action.
Implicit in the Plan is the advantage of sustaining the momentum that the ECPF has already
gathered in order to prevent implementation fatigue which now affects other equally laudable
policies. However, the process of drafting the Plan is bound to be as important as the Plan itself.
The ECPF forecasts that the supplementary Plan will catalogue identified priority activities to be
undertaken in member states, but remains mute on the procedure for identifying the priorities.46
As a follow-through to the ECPF, the ECOWAS Directorate of Political Affairs has engaged a
committee of experts—mostly of West African origin—to elaborate a Logical Framework for
the Security Governance component of the ECPF. If ECOWAS is to start living up to its goal of
becoming ―ECOWAS of the peoples‖ and the overall aim of strengthening human security
through conflict prevention, then the proposed Plan of Action presents an opportunity to make
a quantum shift from traditional, headquarters-oriented policymaking to grassroots, people-
oriented problem-solving.

45
Cf.: Cooper & Pugh (2002), p. 12
46
§29 (f) & 122, ECPF

15
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

REFERENCES

Adebajo, Adekeye (2002), Building Peace in West Africa: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea-Bissau
(London: Lynne Rienner Publishers)

Adebajo, Adekeye and Rashid, Ismail, eds. (2004), West Africa’s Security Challenges: Building Peace in a
Troubled Region (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers)

Adedeji, Adebayo, ed. (1999), Comprehending and Mastering African Conflicts: The Search for Sustainable
Peace and Good Governance (London: Zed Books Ltd.)

Allen, Chris (1999), ―Warfare, Endemic Violence and State Collapse in Africa‖, Review of African
Political Economy, Vol. 26, No. 81, pp. 367-384

Ballentine, Karen and Sherman, Jake, eds. (2003) The Political Economy of Armed Conflict: Beyond
Greed and Grievance (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers)

Bellamy, Alex (2008), ―Conflict Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect‖, Global Governance,
Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 135-156

Bush, George W. (2002), The National Security Strategy of the United States of America 2002
(Washington, D.C.: The White House)

Carment, David (2003), ―Assessing State Failure: Implications for Theory and Policy‖, Third
World Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 407-427

Clapham, Christopher (2002), ―The Challenge to the State in a Globalized World‖, Development
and Change, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 775-795

Collier, Paul (2007), The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done
About It (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Collier, Paul et al (2003), Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy, (Washington:
The World Bank/OUP)

Cooper, Neil and Pugh, Michael (2002), Security-Sector Transformation in Post-Conflict Societies,
Conflict, Security and Development Group Working Papers, No. 5 (London: Centre for
Defence Studies)

16
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

Cramer, Christopher (2006), Civil War is Not a Stupid Thing: Accounting for Violence in Developing
Countries (London: Hurst and Company)

Crocker, Chester (2003), ―Engaging Failing States‖, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp. 32-44

DfID (2005), Why We Need to Work More Effectively in Fragile States (London: DfID)

Duffield, Mark (2001), Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security
(London: Zed Books Ltd.)

Easterly, William (2006), The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So
Much Ill and So Little Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Ellis, Stephen (2005), ―How to Rebuild Africa‖, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 135-148

Gareth, Evans et al (2001), The Responsibility to Protect, Report of the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa: IDRC)

Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace (2008), The Failed States Index 2008 @
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4350; alternatively @
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=292
&Itemid=452, last accessed 20 August 2008

Ghebali, Victor-Yves and Lambert, Alexandre, eds. (2007), Democratic Governance of the Security
Sector Beyond the OSCE Area: Regional Approaches in Africa and the Americas (Zürich: LIT
VERALG GmbH & Co)

Grono, Nick (2007), Fragile States: Searching for Effective Approaches and the Right Mix of Instruments @
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4672, last accessed 10 August 2008

Gros, Jean-Germain (1996), ―Towards a Taxonomy of Failed States in the New World Order:
Decaying Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, and Haiti‖, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.
455-472

Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), ―Responding to State Failure in Africa,‖ International Security, Vol. 21, No.
3, pp. 120-144

Huntington, Samuel (1971), ―Civil Violence and the Process of Development‖, in Civil Violence
and the International System, Part II: Violence and International Security, Adelphi Papers, No. 83,
pp. 1-15

17
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

Keen, David (1998), The Economic Functions of Violence in Civil Wars, Adelphi Paper 320 (London:
IISS)

Krasner, Stephen (2004), ―Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing
States‖, International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 85-120

Krasner, Stephen and Pascual, Carlos (2005), ―Addressing State Failure‖, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84,
No. 4, pp. 153-163

Lundin, Henrik (2003), Crisis and Conflict Prevention with an Internet Based Early Warning System,
SIPRI Thesis Report

Malone, David and Hampson, Fen Osler, eds. (2002), From Reaction to Conflict Prevention:
Opportunities for the UN System (Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers)

Mayall, James and Simpson, Mark (1992), ―Ethnicity is Not Enough: Reflections on Protracted
Secessionism in the Third World‖, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 33, Nos.
1 & 2, pp. 5-25

Menkhaus, Ken (2003), Somalia: State Collapse and the Threat of Terrorism, Adelphi Paper 364
(London: IISS)

OECD (2007), Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations @
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/45/38368714.pdf, last accessed 10 August 2008

Olonisakin, ‗Funmi and Ero, Comfort (2003), ―Africa and the Regionalization of Peace
Operations‖, in: Michael Pugh and Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, eds. The United Nations and
Regional Security: Europe and Beyond (London: Lynne Rienner)

Ottaway, Marina (2002), ―Rebuilding State Institutions in Collapsed States‖, Development and
Change, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 1001-1023

Patrick, Stewart and Brown, Kaysie (2007), Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts? Assessing “Whole of
Government” Approaches to Fragile States (New York: International Peace Academy)

Picciotto, Robert et. al. (2005), Striking a New Balance: Donor Policy Coherence and Development
Cooperation in Difficult Environments (London: International Policy Institute)

Pugh, Michael and Cooper, Neil (2004), War Economies in a Regional Context: Challenges of
Transformation (Colorado: Lynne Rienner)

18
 Uzoechina, Okechukwu Lawrence

Reno, William (2006), ―Congo: From State Collapse to ‗Absolutism‘, to State Failure‖, Third
World Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 43-56

Rotberg, Robert, ed. (2004), When States Fail: Causes and Consequences (Oxford: Princeton
University Press)

Stewart, Frances, et al (2001) War and Underdevelopment, Volume 1: The Economic and Social
Consequences of Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Stewart, Frances, et al (2001) War and Underdevelopment, Volume 2: Country Experiences (Oxford:
Oxford University Press)

Stiglitz, Joseph (2002), Globalization and Its Discontents (London: Penguin Books)

The World Bank (2008), Africa Development Indicators 2007 (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank)

Von Hippel, Karin (1999), Democracy by Force: US Military Intervention in the Post-Cold War World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Wolff, Stefan (2006), State Failure in a Regional Context @ http://www.stefanwolff.com/working-

papers/state-failure.pdf, last accessed 10 August 2008

Zartman, I. William (2005), Cowardly Lions: Missed Opportunities to Prevent Deadly Conflict and State
Collapse (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers)

i
LL.B, BL, MA, Research Fellow, Conflict Security & Development Group (CSDG), London.

19