Posted by 
By Dr. Assan Jallow.
“An isolationist agenda pursued by a nation’s political leadership on its national defense force is a recipe of disaster that opens the floodgates of an imminent political conflict and violent instability”.
Introduction
National security is defined as the protection of the state or conditions of a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity to enhance the people’s well-being. The importance of having a strong, robust, and workable national security cannot be overstated. In this context, President Barrow has to protect the security of The Gambia and not thwart its national security as the continued occupation of ECOMIG forces is a foreseeable threat that will lurk The Gambia in the strings of inevitable political violence and conflict.
National security is a critical human development indicator. Its importance cannot be overemphasized. It plays a plethora of roles and the principal of it is that it guarantees and fosters human growth, peace, and stability and must not be dwarfed by the self-serving desires of politicians and in this context the Executives.
Strong and effective political leadership is a currency that seals the fate of a formidable national security apparatus and of which weak institutions are anathema to national development and thus, threaten national security. By and large, The Gambia’s national security must not be mortgaged to ECOWAS on the pretext of a regional stabilization force where the Republic of Senegal uses it as a maneuvering strategy in its geopolitical fulfillment to access and weaken our national security and defense capability. The ECOMIG’s flagship under the banner of ECOWAS cannot be identified as a driver for national security because it falls under the tentacles of global security and revolves around a coalition of nations working together to ensure that each member state enjoins peace and stability. Those are the guiding principles of any established regional, transnational, and multilateral organizations such as the ECOWAS, EU, and the United Nations. Therefore, the proposed theory by the Barrow government does not fall under that feature.
The Barrow proposition defies logic for a country that enjoins an enviable peace to be entangled in the web of a noticeable fallacy and having the presence of ECOMIG personnel guarding our key national institutions at the expense of our national defense and armed forces. That is illogical and inconceivable as the action of Barrow’s government is a compromised playbook that has a questionable intent as it undermines the safeguards of our national security apparatus. Thus, rendering us lifeless at the mercy of our neighbor as the existence of The Gambia as a republic has always been an existential threat to Senegal as President Senghore once states that it like a “dagger that is pinched in the heart of Senegal”. This is not an imaginary illusion of the mind but, it is the objective truth as we are left to suffocate to death due to the bad political decisions of Barrow’s government. And, that is the price of consequences we pay having foreign troops manning key government installations, including the presidency, exposing our defense capability to the highest bidders (i.e., Senegal and France), while using the ECOWAS project as a cover-up ploy.
A country must take pride in its national security establishment by ensuring that the personnel of both its national police and armed forces are given the attention and respect they deserved to play their fundamental roles as provided by the 1997 constitution and by other legislation and by law established.
Historical Genesis of ECOWAS’s Intervention
The intervention of ECOWAS following the refusal of Jammeh to accept the results of the December 1st presidential elections is an illegitimate attempt that violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Gambia from the perspective of international law. The Gambia’s case was a sham political process that Senegal being an actor presented the case of Jammeh as an existential threat to her geopolitical interests in the sub-region and capitalized as a principal body with vested interest for the regional body to deploy military intervention. Besides, many of us failed to understand and reason within the rationality of the law to understand the causal effects and the damning ramifications of the impasse as we blew the situation out of proportion. This resulted in ECOWAS’s heads of states and governments to capitalize on the presented case of Senegal on behalf of The Gambia using our dire situation with pretentious schemes and install a “force majeure” without approval by our country’s national assembly and its citizens. It could be willful ignorance or frustrations that triggered and led to decisions taken on our behalf without us reviewing and okaying it with our sanctioned domestic legislation.
Consequently, many factors came into play as our minds were daubed by messages that metathesized and resonated well with our desires during that material time. That is a majority of us were only interested to see Jammeh yanked out of the country to save us from the precipice of any looming political crisis by any means necessary. Some for the hate of the person Jammeh and others for having being imprisoned with the cancer of fear or having family members, loved ones, friends, or relatives fall out with Jammeh and victimized by his regime. And, Senegal cunningly steal the show and acted swiftly in spearheading the ECOWAS intervention mission with the project “kicking out a dictator” to restore the will of the people. The will of the people was already sealed as the end was nigh for Jammeh based on the scheduled time of purpose of when a new present is sworn in as per the law provides, under the 1997 constitution.
Discussion on the Extension of ECOMIG Mission in The Gambia
Of recent, ECOWAS has extended the ECOMIG mission in The Gambia for an additional 12 months, and plans are underway to transition and transform the mission into a permanent standby police force in the West African nation of The Gambia following its 58th Ordinary Session of the Authority of Head of State and Government. That countries such as Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, and Ghana have all agreed to provide police units to The Gambia. I’m dumbfounded, sick, and highly disappointed, thus receiving one of the nastiest slaps on my neck upon hearing this sad, worrying, and unwise decisions of the Executive under Barrow that can be likened to the demonization of our security apparatus. It is a political porn movie making the Gambia a definite 16th province of Senegal as the drama unfolds. This is because the proposed composition of the would-be stabilizing force signals a bad statement of intent, political madness, and suicide that is geared to undermine our national security. By the look of things, The Gambia does not have any features of a fragile state, besides what the Barrow government is proposing or had agreed on with ECOWAS under the influence of President Macky Sall of Senegal. Our state of fragility and looming political conflicts and threats to national security will be generated through the continued presence of ECOMIG on our shores that will birth a new canceled culture where are men and women in uniform will be marginalized, underutilized, and replaced by foreign troops.
The first duty of government is to effectively maintain a robust and formidable national security apparatus to safeguard and protect the treasures of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. It is the livewire that drives the courage of conviction centered on hope, faith, resilience, ingenuity, creativity, and the feat of entrepreneurial cognition to help development thrive and human happiness blossom, and grow for all to enjoy the spoils of endeared peace and stability.
Anyway, who’s advising #BARROW PORG on national security? Is the Gambia at war by itself? What has happened to the Security Sector Reforms? Has our national security establishments been senile? What roles will our armed forces perform? If Barrow decides to have an extended stay of the ECOMIG Forces, then there is no need to have a national armed force as that role has been transferred to the ECOMIG Forces.
President Barrow should note that he’s been elected to deliver on his promises and not to dampen the wishes and aspirations of the citizens, particularly our men and women in uniform. Simply put, Barrow is constitutionally sanctioned to protect and serve the interest of the Gambia and that of its citizens and the residents as his principal, and not that of Senegal’s Macky Sall capitalizing on his inexcusable ignorance to position our peace-loving nation on the periphery of looming political and security crisis.
Our impasse following the December 1st disputed polls which resulted in Jammeh not accepting the results following his acceptance of a defeat does not warrant our country to be used as an ECOWAS policing project. Being an executive president has a consequence and there are many of the ramifications we will continue to have at the incompetent mercy of Barrow toeing political expediency.
Many pundits have weighed in their opinions on the subject. However, and after a considerable review from a rational lens based on my reasoning abilities and research hat from an objective angle, I realized that some are missing the point of the discussion as they allowed emotive feelings to dictate their judgment. To better understand my point of the argument on the issue of national security, please refer to my article published with Freedom Newspaper on May 24th, 2020, titled: “Senegalese Military Adventure and Incursion in the Gambia: A Test on Our Military Capability and a Threat to National Security”. More importantly, having the opportunity to teach a course on Peace and Conflict Studies during my state in the Republic of Benin has also allowed me to grasp and weigh in my opinion based on my understanding and the extensive research I made regarding peace, conflict, and security.
Barrow’s action is tantamount to subversion and having our national security monetized under the ECOWAS’ ECOMIG mission at the expense of our national security. Having foreign troops under the pretext of a faulty proposition of national security threat is the joke of the day. That proposition is not saleable as it is unconstitutional and has failed the test of legal reasonableness in the context of national security as it was blown out of context by sensationalism, hate, anger, and political exuberance or masturbation. What Barrow is doing is an act of subversion and wielding unilateral decisions without subjecting his policies before the national assembly for debate, scrutiny, and approval and deciding the fate of our country on his political interest and to the loyalty, he owes to Macy Sall of Senegal. There is no other way to characterize this ill-fated decision of Barrow than a mere cherry-picking and a project for his grand-master – President Macky.
National security must not be centralized in the powers of an executive president as unilateral decisions have consequences. Therefore, there is the need to install proper checks and balances in our national defense and security act to ensure that decisions on national security are tabled and debated in the National Assembly and put on a referendum for the citizens to vote. That is what the democratization process of people’s power centering on issues that revolve around the lives and livelihoods of the citizens is supposed to be executed.
Schools of Thoughts on the Extension of ECOMIG Mission in The Gambia
From a security studies perspective, two schools of thought emerged. These are the (a) Copenhagen School and the (b) Aberystwyth School (the Middle-of-the-road). Those from the nationalist school argue that The Gambia does not need a stabilizing force and those from the Middle-of-the-Road school are positing on the need to have ECOMIG troops and an ECOWAS stabilizing force based on what transpired on December 1st, leading and the polarization in the country post -Jammeh. Both schools could be right applying the theorem of the balancing act. And based on prevailing circumstances and realities in the ground, then the nationalist school of thought is the best-suited argument to lean to if we are too serious about nation-building and national security. This will allow us the opportunity to debate/discuss ways to avoid bad political decisions and save our country from the tortures of future polarization and divisiveness in The Gambia.
-
The Copenhagen School
The Copenhagen School in the Gambian context can be referred to as the nationalist agenda. This school identifies security as an uncompromising survival need of a yielding desire that must be internalized and domesticated rather than driven from without and under the influence of foreign powers. The proponents of this school posit that we do not need a stabilizing force and that the presence of ECOMIG on the Gambian shores poses an existential threat to our national security. That is because The Gambia is not a post-conflict nation and has become one of the most peaceful and stable countries in the region. This is an incontestable line of argument holding all factors constant and based on our endearing and jealously guarded peace and relative stability as a country, since independence. Therefore, having an ECOMIG stabilizing force is counterintuitive and undermines our national security parameter from a security vantage point. The rationale for a stabilizing force does not fit to characterize the Gambia as a potential hotspot for conflict. There are visible hotspots that could be better used to contain Al-Qaida, Boka Haram, and other Islamic extremists or militant groups in the West African region of countries such as Mali, Guinea Bissau, Nigeria, just to name but a few.
The decision by the Barrow government is unacceptable and an insult to injury to our state of national security. There are no security threats and Barrow cannot use his inertia, anxiety, and insomnia to prey our country and mortgage our independence and territorial integrity, and security to Senegal, France, and ECOWAS.
Conflict is a relationship between two or more parties (individuals or groups) who have or think they have incompatible goals. It is a situation in which two or more human beings desire goals which they perceived as being obtainable by one or the other, but not both, as each party is mobilizing efforts to obtain a goal and each party sees each other as a threat or barrier to that goal. What this implies is that conflict happens in cases where predetermined goals and objectives set up by two parties of divergent views see each other as a threat towards achieving a set goal. This is because conflicts arise from created imbalances, such as unequal social status, unequal wealth and access to resources, and unequal power, leading to problems of discrimination, isolation, unemployment, neglect, and oppression of the masses by the few in society. Each level connects towards others either for constructive change or destructive violence. That is the inevitability of the ECOMIG project which is incompatible with the goals and desired objectives of the majority of the citizens of the Gambia. It is a bane that will be recouped, stifle, and placed our endearing peace and stability into the baskets of deplorable political turmoil in the not too far distant future if the ill-conceived political idea and decision are not rescinded by Barrow and the citizens.
The theory of relativity has indicated that the continuous presence of ECOMIG forces without the approval of the citizens through a referendum is a direct threat to our national sovereignty. It is a foreseeable threat that has the prospects to spark future political conflict and instability in The Gambia. That is because the presence of the ECOMIG force continues to intensify the echo chambers of frustration and the specter of anger, isolation, and neglect which further adds insults to injury in the mode of our silent dilemma. The resultant effects are catastrophic because when they arrived, our men and women in uniform were rendered redundant and underutilized. This by itself will turn our fine officers into weapons of destruction by the forces of opportunism to unleash their seething rage for having been marginalized and abandoned by the political leadership of the country. That is the price to pay for the dire consequences of replacing our security personnel with foreign troops.
Based on the above, the only foreseeable national threat that can be ascertained will be a result of the COVID-19 pandemic causing major disruption in the global economy, and of which the government of the Gambia seems not to be interested in the fight. We have witnessed the guidelines being relaxed as if the virus is non-existent and a no cause of concern to all amid the fanfare, celebrations, and political jamborees at the expense of public health for self-serving desires.
-
The Aberystwyth School
I referred to this school of thought as the Middle-of-the-Road (i.e., the naysayers). These proponents shift the blame on the sovereign state, thereby labeling it as ineffective in the provision of security, justice, and maintenance of law and order due to the excruciating pains and traumas they had been exposed to during the 22 years of Jammeh’s rule. They propose that “the sovereign state is not the main provider of security”. One can see this line of argument across, as many hold the view that far more people were killed, arrested, detained, imprisoned, maimed, and tortured by our government (national security) than one can have by the occupying foreign military force. That the army prey on the citizens and reduced their state functions and institutions as torture agents and chambers in a form of condescending gallantry for Jammeh and not to the constitution which they swore to uphold, protect, and preserve at all cost. Fair enough, that there were some rotten potatoes within the army and that alone cannot justify the need to sideline our national army and bring in a foreign force to take care of our national security.
To put a historical context, we tend to associate the Gambia Armed Forces as “Yahya’s Force Nationale”. That’s is where the departure of objective reasoning begins to birth fallacy which comes to play in our minds as we weakened our reasoning abilities by allowing the shadows of Jammeh to drive our emotive feelings. Thus, making us wrongly apply the law of generalizability which in context defies logic holding all factors constant.
Therefore, I am of the view that the army didn’t hold contempt of authority or constitutionality during the December 2016 impasse. The Gambia Armed Forces did what was constitutionally provided as by law therein established per the 1997 Constitution. That the Gambia Armed Forces and other members of the sister security services cannot be absolved of the unearth crimes of the state from 1994 to 2016. We blew the situation out of proportion and that resulted in Senegal seizing the opportunity at the right time to pretend to pursue the case of The Gambia to have access to our military establishment and weaken our military capability.
The American democratic experimentation of November 3rd, 2020 isn’t any different from the Gambia’s December 1st, 2016. Ours is better as what happened at the eleventh hour of the end of Trump’s administration was an act of insurrection against the U.S capitol and government. I wondered what would life be if that would have been the Gambia’s case. The matured American democratic experimentation was at play and that is what maturity and reasoning of the minds do. Unlike, the case of The Gambia, as we took the issue with judgment untempered with the bitter feelings of husky a morsel for human deglutition centered on hate and anger on the person of Jammeh.
Having said that whereas, the army came off short in their constitutional duties to the state should not be a license of neglect and punishment from a sitting president. Pursuing that path is a presidential abdication of duties and a deliberate attempt of citizens’ sabotage for holding malice against our fine men and women in uniform.
The proponents further argued that the current polarization of The Gambia warrants the need to have an extended ECOMIG Mission that will transform into a stabilization police force. That line of the argument is faulty as The Gambia has a professional police force that stands the test of times and has been recognized in troubled hotspots around the world as the best professional policing force. Kudos to our fine officers! However, if those plans are underway, then would that not mean laying the eggs of disaster and conflict.
Conclusion
It beats one’s imagination hearing the pounding of the mortars of ignorance and people presumed to be literate to a certain extent fueling the conspiracy theorem that The Gambia can be secured better in the hands of a foreign force and not of our own. What a crippling strategy as it can be likened to a political decision that is sanctioned to death by lethal injection. That argument is a non-starter because using our history under Jammeh is at odds with the levers of reasonings. And, hearing those utterances makes me often wonder if I am reading the same scripts as those advancing their point of the argument who seems to be living in the shadows of Jammeh with obliterated minds and wired brains. The Gambia cannot be peaceful nor stable if our national security is handed to ECOMIG or any occupying force under the ECOWAS securitization flagship. Also, it would be counterproductive to use the security sector reforms as a conditional precedent on the Gambia needing the extension of ECOMIG and a Stabilizing police force soon. We do not need ECOMIG on our shores as the stakes of its ramifications are too grave for little and peaceful Gambia to bear in the long-term. It is unacceptable and the height of irresponsible leadership. Let’s cut the crab and get to work! President Barrow must deliver or vacate the Statehouse with immediate effect. If he is unwilling to do so, then he has no better option but to disband our national security apparatus, effective immediately if he does not have trust in our security. Hey, “beut bou rousut touch”. ” Tey daffa do”. Mbaa Li jamaa la sah”. Has the National Assembly approved of this decision by the executive? What will happen to our Gambia Police Force? and, what role will this change in security policy have in our national police force? These are many of the issues we should debate in our national discourse as these and many of Barrow’s projects are all geared to turn The Gambia into a conflict zone.
The ECOWAS blueprint is critical but using our 2016 political impasse has failed the test of intervention regarding peace-keeping mission because our country is not at war and there are no damning threats that warrant a stabilization force to be stationed on our domestic shores. The continuous presence of the ECOWAS flagship (ECOMIG) is an affront to our national sovereignty and independence, and we must denounce it outright, regardless of party affiliation and without prejudice to the person of anyone we disagree with based on policies or ideologies.
To fulfill a politics of hope and restore confidence in the people, the Barrow government must rescind the ECOWAS project under the ECOMIG flagship forthwith. The construct is bad and to toe that political line presents a bad omen as the idea and decision is ill-fated, inconceivable and the citizens must denounce it, forthwith without any shadow of a doubt. One thing we must set straight is that we should never be afraid to speak our minds with voices of reason when those who are entrusted with the power to steer the affairs of the nation are drowning us or leading our country in the pitch of damnation and the thick wedge of cynicism, and the abyss of abnormality in political leadership and exposing us to the doors of foreseeable potential future controls due to self-serving desires.
To conclude, for The Gambia to be developed, progressive, enlightened, and prosperous, we must pursue a nationalist agenda in the realm of national security and not an agenda influenced and dictated by another sovereign country like Senegal and France.
References
Baldwin, D. A. ‘The Concept of Security’, Review of International Studies, 23 (1997) pp. 5-28.
Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and Wilde, J. Security: A New Framework for Analysis (London, Lynne Rienner, 1998), p. 21.
Disaya, A. ( 2013). Towards a Critical Securitization Theory: The Copenhagen and Aberystwyth Schools of Security Studies. E- International Relations. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2013/02/01/towards-a-critical-securitization-theory-the-copenhagen-and-aberystwyth-schools-of-security-studies/
Floyd, R. ‘Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: bringing together the Copenhagen and Welsh Schools of security studies’, Review of International Studies, 33 (2007) pp. 327-50.
Jallow, Assan (2014). Peace and Conflict Studies. Unpublished
Smith, S. ‘The Contested Concept of Security’, in Critical Security Studies and World Politics, edited by Ken Booth (London, Lynne Rienner, 2005), p. 27.
Wolfers, A. ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’, Political Science Quarterly, 67 (1952) pp. 481-502.
Dr. Jallow is an economics and finance scholar who has extensive knowledge about philosophy, international business, taxation, strategic management, business, and management consulting. He has also taught peace and conflict studies in Benin at an Undergraduate level both at POMA International Business University and EDEXCEL university when students’ who were about to graduate did not have a lecturer to take that course of study on the approval of the University’s senate.