The viability of ECOWAS scepticism necessitates a re-evaluation of the objectives of the AES which stands in opposition to ECOWAS. AES functions as a counterpoint to ECOWAS, fostering a climate of scepticism, particularly in light of ECOWAS’s recent failures to maintain regional stability. With instances such as Togo’s intention to exit ECOWAS, other nations may also reassess their membership, potentially leading to a division within the region. This scepticism is further compounded by neo-colonial influences where former colonialists may prefer stability within ECOWAS over the more assertive AES, raising concerns that departing from ECOWAS could result in diminished Western support. The complexities surrounding the withdrawal of Sahel countries from ECOWAS stem from the organization’s mishandling of regional crises, such as the hasty sanctions following the July 2023 Niger coup, which revealed significant flaws in ECOWAS’s approach to governance issues. The inability to effectively address terrorism and economic marginalization, along with growing geopolitical alternatives presented by nations like Russia, has weakened ties to traditional western alliances and hastened exit strategies. Moreover, the breakdown illuminates ECOWAS’s dependence on ineffective sanctions and highlights its failure to engage adequately with affected communities, undermining its legitimacy in a shifting geopolitical landscape.

The implications of the 19 January adoption of the withdrawal of the AES have far-reaching consequences for not only the member states and ECOWAS, but also for the broader question of African regional integration. For its member countries, withdrawal has ramifications on regional cross-border trade, monetary transactions and human mobility, thereby presenting enormous challenges for its members. The states are confronted with prospects of economic isolation and higher maritime access costs, particularly as landlocked states. Moreover, there is a danger of diminished foreign direct investment as a result of perceived instability and low market access. AES’s announcements regarding the formation of their own regional confederation and a 5,000-troop force highlight the need for these states to build alternative regional cooperation frameworks from the ground up, particularly in areas previously governed by ECOWAS protocols, such as trade facilitation and security cooperation.

AES’s withdrawal has far-reaching consequences for ECOWAS coastal countries. The short-term consequences are that it can disrupt traditional trade routes and economic zones. Coastal urban centres and transit commerce could suffer economic downturn. Cross-border societies and traditional trading networks, on the contrary, could be disadvantaged, particularly because Mauritania and Morocco are promoting Sahel-Saharan integration and championing AES access to the Atlantic Ocean. In terms of security, these states are now exposed to higher security risks owing to fewer regional cooperation mechanisms. Moreover, the situation has the potential to worsen illegal migration and trafficking, thereby creating new security challenges.

Institutionally, this trend has impacted the credibility of ECOWAS and its vision for regional integration, which has informed West Africa for almost five decades. It also suggests a decline in its collective bargaining power. This can undermine its bargaining power within the AU and, more generally, at international negotiations. Beyond undermining its position as a model for African regional integration and informing international partnerships, the organization is experiencing diminished financial contributions and declining overall influence. ECOWAS primarily funds its budget through a Community Levy in form of a 0.5 per cent tax imposed on goods imported from non-ECOWAS countries. This levy accounts for approximately 70 per cent to 90 per cent of ECOWAS’s total budget.

The ECOWAS divide has profound implications for the broader integration agenda of the AU, contrary to prevailing realities and future expectations. It sets a precedent for the disintegration of regional blocs and challenges the AU’s fundamental doctrine of regional integration as a stepping stone to continental unity. It also poses formidable challenges to the African Peace and Security Architecture, which has ECOWAS as one of its main pillars. The appearance of new blocs such as AES is a departure towards issue-based, more flexible regional integration, instead of rigid geography-based paradigms. It implies security matters are given more priority than economics in determining regional affiliations. This may affect the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area and have an impact on other sub-regional schemes, thereby raising critical questions regarding the relevance of regional economic communities as bricks to continental integration.