Alusine A. Sesay
Folks, I invite you to undertake a careful and comparative reading of two separate press releases issued in response to the United States’ invasion of Venezuela.
The first was released by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), purportedly on behalf of its Chairman, President Maada Bio.
The second came from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ghana, speaking explicitly and solely on behalf of Ghana.
What is immediately striking and deeply troubling is the stark disparity in tone, clarity, and moral courage between the two statements.
ECOWAS, an institution expected to embody principled leadership, diplomatic bravery, and institutional credibility, failed spectacularly in this regard. Instead of speaking with candour, it retreated into evasive and sanitised language. The communiqué did not explicitly name the United States, nor did it mention Donald Trump, nor did it clearly condemn what many across the world have characterised as a blatant violation of international law, the invasion of a sovereign state.
Responsibility was neither identified nor assigned. The principal actor was carefully obscured.
This reluctance to speak plainly stands in sharp contrast to the position adopted by Ghana, which demonstrated commendable diplomatic resolve by clearly articulating its condemnation and aligning itself with the stance taken by numerous states across the international community.
One is therefore compelled to ask: Why did ECOWAS, an organisation mandated to uphold regional values, sovereignty, and international norms, choose timidity, equivocation, and silence where moral clarity was required?
Such an approach raises uncomfortable but unavoidable questions.
Is ECOWAS constrained by undisclosed political considerations?
Is it acting out of fear or excessive deference to powerful external actors?
Whatever the explanation, the result is deeply damaging. The statement projects weakness, irrelevance, and institutional impotence. In truth, it might have been preferable for ECOWAS to issue no statement at all than to release one so hollow and devoid of moral substance.
Against this backdrop, I now await the response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sierra Leone regarding the same incident, the invasion of a sovereign nation under the Trump administration.
A colleague has suggested that any such statement is likely to mirror the insipid tone of the ECOWAS communiqué, given the perceived reluctance of the Bio administration to engage candidly with sensitive international issues, particularly those involving the United States.
I challenge that assumption.
Why should such restraint exist? The Government of Sierra Leone has repeatedly denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of the alleged narcotics kingpin, Bolle Jos, who is reportedly residing within the country. If these denials are genuine, then the government has nothing to fear and no justification for avoiding principled engagement on matters of international legality, sovereignty, and global order.
Ultimately, silence, ambiguity, or diplomatic evasiveness in the face of clear violations of international norms does not constitute neutrality. It risks being interpreted as complicity.
Institutions and states are judged not merely by the statements they issue, but by their willingness to speak truth to power when it matters most.
