The Sahel: An Ecological and Political Crisis
As the ECOWAS countries held a meeting today to contemplate sending a "standby force" to restore democracy to Niger after the military coup in Niamey, Africa has come close to a multi-country war as both Mali and Burkina Faso (both lead by military juntas too) assured they would come to the defense of Niger if military action was taken against the country. Hopefully this kind of clusterfuck won't happen, as unfortunately we know from the First and Second Congo War that African countries can make their own version of WW1 despite all the happy rhetoric of Pan-Africanism.
Yet I think this region and the slow train wreck and tragedy it's experiencing is worth a thread of it's own in PF.
The region clearly shows what devastation climate change has already brought and how this creates a political crisis and wars. And then there's the aspect of an European colonizer who never left the region and the possibility of a new version of the "Great Game" been played here.
The Colonizer who never left
When it comes to the countries of the Sahel region, it's noteworthy to point out just how brief and superficial the French colonization was, even if it is crucial in understanding the present. The region fell into French rule in the turn of the 20th Century and Niger became a French colony only in 1922. Large parts of Chad were basically not ruled by the French. Hence in the Sahel, a person who lived long could both have witnessed the arrival of the French and later in life the new independence. The British colonies of Nigeria and Sudan have similar problems, yet the British haven't been involved in a similar fashion as the French have.
Prior to the European colonization the large and old empires of Mali or Kanem Bornu had long vanished and the history of the Sahel prior the colonial era was quite tumultuous. And as the geography is desert and savanna, the borders are really just maps in the line. Desert environment makes the region poor, even if there are natural resources in the region (oil, uranium, etc). This has lead to central governments being intrinsically weak and has made it possible for armed bands simply moving from one country to another. Military coups have been frequent and now you could talk about a Coup-bloc forming in the Sahel as the armed forces have been in the end the only working (and financed) part of the government.
Not only has France meddled in the politics of the countries, but it also dominates the weak economies and has for example kept the Chinese out from having such a role as it has in other parts of Africa. French military presence in the countries with increasing violence, dismal economic growth and not much positive has naturally lead to anti-French sentiment taking over (again) the countries. Some of course might argue that the feeling never went away.
The War that was forgotten everywhere else but the Sahel
The Global War on Terror might seem now as part of history after the re-establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but it's been fought in the Sahel even today. If during the Cold War the sides were divided by the US / Soviet conflict (the best example in the region The Chadian-Libyan war), now the conflict that gets the interest and the Western financial aid is the fight against muslim extremists, the franchizing enterprise made by Al Qaeda and IS. Starting with Algerian civil war and then with the collapse of Libya, fighters then first moved to Mali, which then in turned lured the French to fight them (in 2013) when there was the possibility of Bamako falling. Afterwards the GWOT campaign has gone nearly as bad as it did in Afghanistan.
And naturally this fixation on fighting Al Qaeda and IS couldn't at all handle problems like the violence that erupted between cattle herders and the Dogon people in Mali, which then the muslim extremists were quick to use. Yet this rarely reported conflict, which has happened because of climate change (desertification), shows that the problems are structural in the region and the US and France fighting a war of a now bygone era isn't the answer, it's actually the problem. Also Tuareg's wanting to create a country of there own, Azawad, isn't directly related to fighting Al Qaeda.
Dogon militia on motorbikes. In there neighborhood the Malian government is nowhere to be seen:
All the investment in the militaries of the Sahel countries have resulted in military coups and the French being kicked out. Mali was first to show the door to the French and now that withdrawal is difficult as Niger has had a military coup.
The tragedy is that many people seem to pin their hopes on the Russian Wagner helping them to fight the jihadists, which in my view will just make the countries to be a playing field in the geopolitical games Great Powers play. (Mali has Wagner troops, but for instance the junta in Burkina Faso has rejected them).
But what do you think?
Will France finally retire from the countries or is this just one chapter that things look bad for the neocolonist?
Will we see even worse development, more famines and war in the region?
Is there something positive to see in this region?
If there's good articles or comments about what is happening in these countries, I'd be happy if you would post them.
Yet I think this region and the slow train wreck and tragedy it's experiencing is worth a thread of it's own in PF.
The region clearly shows what devastation climate change has already brought and how this creates a political crisis and wars. And then there's the aspect of an European colonizer who never left the region and the possibility of a new version of the "Great Game" been played here.
The Colonizer who never left
When it comes to the countries of the Sahel region, it's noteworthy to point out just how brief and superficial the French colonization was, even if it is crucial in understanding the present. The region fell into French rule in the turn of the 20th Century and Niger became a French colony only in 1922. Large parts of Chad were basically not ruled by the French. Hence in the Sahel, a person who lived long could both have witnessed the arrival of the French and later in life the new independence. The British colonies of Nigeria and Sudan have similar problems, yet the British haven't been involved in a similar fashion as the French have.
Prior to the European colonization the large and old empires of Mali or Kanem Bornu had long vanished and the history of the Sahel prior the colonial era was quite tumultuous. And as the geography is desert and savanna, the borders are really just maps in the line. Desert environment makes the region poor, even if there are natural resources in the region (oil, uranium, etc). This has lead to central governments being intrinsically weak and has made it possible for armed bands simply moving from one country to another. Military coups have been frequent and now you could talk about a Coup-bloc forming in the Sahel as the armed forces have been in the end the only working (and financed) part of the government.
Not only has France meddled in the politics of the countries, but it also dominates the weak economies and has for example kept the Chinese out from having such a role as it has in other parts of Africa. French military presence in the countries with increasing violence, dismal economic growth and not much positive has naturally lead to anti-French sentiment taking over (again) the countries. Some of course might argue that the feeling never went away.
The War that was forgotten everywhere else but the Sahel
The Global War on Terror might seem now as part of history after the re-establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but it's been fought in the Sahel even today. If during the Cold War the sides were divided by the US / Soviet conflict (the best example in the region The Chadian-Libyan war), now the conflict that gets the interest and the Western financial aid is the fight against muslim extremists, the franchizing enterprise made by Al Qaeda and IS. Starting with Algerian civil war and then with the collapse of Libya, fighters then first moved to Mali, which then in turned lured the French to fight them (in 2013) when there was the possibility of Bamako falling. Afterwards the GWOT campaign has gone nearly as bad as it did in Afghanistan.
And naturally this fixation on fighting Al Qaeda and IS couldn't at all handle problems like the violence that erupted between cattle herders and the Dogon people in Mali, which then the muslim extremists were quick to use. Yet this rarely reported conflict, which has happened because of climate change (desertification), shows that the problems are structural in the region and the US and France fighting a war of a now bygone era isn't the answer, it's actually the problem. Also Tuareg's wanting to create a country of there own, Azawad, isn't directly related to fighting Al Qaeda.
Dogon militia on motorbikes. In there neighborhood the Malian government is nowhere to be seen:
All the investment in the militaries of the Sahel countries have resulted in military coups and the French being kicked out. Mali was first to show the door to the French and now that withdrawal is difficult as Niger has had a military coup.
The tragedy is that many people seem to pin their hopes on the Russian Wagner helping them to fight the jihadists, which in my view will just make the countries to be a playing field in the geopolitical games Great Powers play. (Mali has Wagner troops, but for instance the junta in Burkina Faso has rejected them).
But what do you think?
Will France finally retire from the countries or is this just one chapter that things look bad for the neocolonist?
Will we see even worse development, more famines and war in the region?
Is there something positive to see in this region?
If there's good articles or comments about what is happening in these countries, I'd be happy if you would post them.
Comments (53)
Interesting. Thanks. This is an area I know just about nothing about, so I don't have much to contribute, but I will be paying attention.
How does Boko Haram fit into this? Are they one of the Al Queda/IS franchises you mentioned?
It has played a part, yes. Boko Haram was for a while working with the IS.
The Franchises have actually older roots than 9/11 and Osama's successful terrorist strike. AQIM, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, was formerly know as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, had links to the Algerian Civil war and there the GIA.
Under the command of Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram rebranded itself as Islamic State West Africa Province. Yet then after internal disagreements the ISWAP and Boko Haram separated again and Khekau continued to lead the Boko Haram... until he seems to have died in a battle between Boko Haram and ISWAP in june 2021. It's estimated that ISWAP had something like 4 000 to 5 000 fighters last year and the operate basically in the northeast corner of Nigeria next to Chad and Cameroon. (Basically Northern Nigeria is Muslim and was only later years of the British Colony annexed, while the south is Christian / animist.)
(the former Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, who gained international media attention after kidnapping hundreds of young girls)
Here's a map of the IS franchise in Africa:
The jihadists fighting each other isn't actually rare and there's really room for conspiracy theories.
The best example is GIA in Algeria, which basically started killing Algerian civilians and the actual "moderate" Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) leaders (who basically had won the elections and then the Algerian military staged a coup and the civil war started), but not so much the Algerian army. There are many allegations that the Algerian government worked with GIA, didn't do much to stop the massacres done by GIA and allegations that governments forces operated as being GIA terrorists. When the FIS wanted France to be a peacebroker between the Algerian government, it was GIA who staged terrorist attacks in France. France then wouldn't start negotiations, but backed the Algerian government. And finally the FIS (now aligned with a new movement AIS) basically surrendered to the government forces after getting amnesty. After this the GIA quickly evaporated. But the remnants later found themselves across the border in Mali.
To argue that GIA was fabricated by the Algerian government would be a crazy conspiracy (just like the idea that the US/Israel were behind the IS), but that a government would first go for the "moderate" insurgents (that actually had won democratic elections) before the fringe movement is quite a rational and logical choice.
It seems unlikely that ECOWAS will successfully restore democracy. I don't know how much power they can bring to bear (military and economic) on the Niger Junta. I can imagine one of the major powers attempting this and having the effort fall flat on its face. Or blowing up in their face. Some sort of face-losing experience.
Quoting ssu
Famine, certainly. What desertification doesn't do, bad politics probably will. There were efforts being undertaken to slow the advance of the desert southward; the last time I read about that was years ago.
Africa is so big; the cultures so varied; the success and failure of various nations in doubt.
Thanks for starting this thread. I don't know much about Africa either.
This map demonstrates how big the continent is
If China can have a part 2, the US needs one. This aggression will not stand.
I think the probability of military intervention into Niger is low, but still exists.
The ECOWAS is divided about any intervention into one of their member states. And it should be remembered that both Mali and Burkina Faso are part of the organization. So it seems that ECOWAS is similar to the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), where the members have been close to outright war also.
Niger: DHQ directs service chiefs to compile war items, ECOWAS lawmakers divided
Quoting BC
There has been this large effort of the Great Green Wall initiative, which does have seen millions of trees planted.
Unfortunately the Sahel countries don't have the resources of China, which has tackled it's own desertification problem with a similar project. So it's a bit of a problem when the people use wood for heating and cooking.
I can't help thinking that Russia and China are somehow responsible for stirring up this mess.
When economic conditions worsen then people all of the sudden become aware that they have a country that is governed by politicians. Politicians are the simplest target for having caused all worsening conditions. Why didn't 'they' foresee and prevent the hot sun the drought the locusts the famine. Surely whoever calls themselves the opposition party can do better.
Given the historical role of greedy Western powers, the right opposition party must then be either the equally foreign supported Islamists or the Eastern powers. In either case, if the population sees the West as the villain then there isn't much that the West can do to change that. Whether the French stay or leave they will still be the 'oppressors' in the reductionist dichotomous politics of Africa.
Does this in any way mean that the military might be able to provide more stable government than the civil sector?
When I think of governments in central Africa, I think of instability, corruption, revolution, violence, coups, terrorism, war lords, and extreme poverty. There have been crises there my entire life. How much of that vision is my western parochialism? Are there any areas of peace and stability.
I read parts of Mungo Park's "Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa." If I remember correctly, he travelled up the Gambia River and down the Niger in the period between 1795 and 1805. He painted a picture of a region made up of small, relatively peaceful and prosperous kingdoms. It's a really good book. He wrote well, but died very young. I should go back and finish it.
Stable government is far more than the security sector, and that's a problem. You cannot use only a hammer, if you would need a saw or an axe. And military junta's are prone to corruption and building a "military-industrial complex" where the armed forces have a large role in the country's businesses.
Quoting T Clark
I guess Senegal has been rather peaceful and stable, even if there are internal problems even there. But there hasn't been a military coup in the country or a civil war, although that from 1960 the country has had only four presidents. Yet economic growth has happened more in East Africa than in West Africa, where the Sahel region hasn't seen much if any improvement.
Quoting T Clark
That's basically hundred years before Europeans colonized the Sahel region. Learning pre-colonial history of Africa is very informative as usually people just gaze at the continent from the (negativs) effects that colonalization had on the countries. In a way just looking at Africa (and the Sahel) as the playground for European Great Powers downplays the African actors and African issues.
The underlying geopolitical aspect of these military coups is fundamental here. Safety, economic, political, healthcare, and even personal survival issues can be marginalized when absolute political power and money rule..
Two evils don't cancel each other to make things right. There must be a third better way. Popular elections are an attempt to find that third way.
If you think so, you must think the Maidan coup in Ukraine was evil to, no?
China's interest in the Sahel (and in Africa in general) with it's Belt and Road Initiative is simply to get more customers for it's industry and enlarge it's infrastructure building beyond China. China's only military base in Africa is in Djibouti, where it shares the place with a myriad of other countries from Saudi-Arabia alongside France, Germany, Japan and the US.
(The below map is old as Mali doesn't have the international operations going in it anymore and hence no western bases. French troops left the country last year)
Russia has been more active in the "Great Game" by giving an alternative to the West in security services, and it's mercenaries from Wagner have been active in Central African Republic (CAR) and Mali. Mali, which had seen a lot of Western assistance in the form Operation Serval and Berkhane, went on to have Wagner troops after the French withdrew. Mali's junta has openly advertized that the Wagner forces have been effective, hence it's likely that people in Niger see Russia as a preferable option, because there is a genuine security problem. Yet it goes a bit too far to say that Russia is behind this mess: Russia gives an alternative choice which some factions can think is an answer to their problems. Hence the Russian flags and pro-Russian sentiment in the demonstrations. But this isn't clear cut. For example the military junta in Burkina Faso has said it doesn't want Wagner / Russians to come to help them.
What's the obsession with puppets? I think Nigerien political actors themselves have a role in this and Nigerien domestic politics can be a bigger reason, like Bazoum forcing generals to retire. Yes, there is disenchantment about the democracy of Bazoum's administration.
Yet Bazoum representing Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism won the elections in 2021 from a former president of Niger Mahamane Ousmane. Btw Ousmane had been also thrown out of power by a military coup and there had been one failed coup against Bazoum already in 2021. So were they both puppets or what?
And coup against America? France, definately yes, US perhaps not:
And I think five officers of the junta have been trained in the US... and Victoria N has been already there to talk with them.
What's the obsession with misrepresenting a statement of fact as "obsession with puppets"? What's with your obsession with denying the fact "first world countries" have always, and still have, puppet leaders in third (and even second and first) world countries. It's like you've never heard of colonialism, imperialism, or soft power
Quoting ssu Winning elections doesn't keep a ruler from being a puppet for another government. Remember, those defending the Maidan coup have accused Yakunovich of being a Russian puppet, as they have Orban. Do you think they are entirely wrong?
Quoting ssu
You have to unpack and explain this one better because it doesn't make sense as is
Quoting ssu
Are you kidding? America has a base and thousands of troops in there and the new regime clearly wants Western imperialism/colonialism out and management of tis own Uranium. The fact America sent Gloria Nuland (of the Maidan coup) to threaten the new regime unless they stepped down, and demanded to meet with their deposed ally (likely to abet that) helps prove that. The fact the new regime rebuffed her and sent her packing certainly does
I've thought about that a lot, especially the US's role. Generally speaking, I consider the overthrow of a democratically elected government a bad thing. One thing is pretty certain, we wouldn't be having a war in the Ukraine if it hadn't happened and we wouldn't be as close to nuclear war as we are now.
My point was that one can't condemn one coup on the principle coups are bad and then support a coup they like
So, is this iteration of the Great Game primarily an economic one, countries grabbing for markets? Is there still a military purpose, i.e. a struggle for political hegemony?
Quoting ssu
Do the flags represent military presence or just any sort of political or military involvement? What is the US's role in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Quoting ssu
Wagner seems to be everywhere. Are they considered an organ of the Russian military and foreign policy? If so, they are an unruly one.
What is the role of US military in Niger?
More than 20 were killed and hundreds were wounded when government forces attempted to retake the Maidan
Don't you see a difference between a genuine popular uprising and a military coup?
What statement of facts?
Seems like if previously you couldn't say anything about the reasons of Putins actions, somehow now Nigerien politics is quite clear to you as are the facts.
Perhaps you don't seem to notice just how condescending it is to view everything evolving around the US and the Great Powers and everybody else being puppets, pawns and sycophants. Yes, these counties TRY to influence states, yet the actions are limited. They can influence only so much what events happen and in the end foreign countries are just one group of actors in a country. Yet if we are fixated only the colonialists, domestic poltics and internal problems don't matter. Perhaps it's too difficult for Americans to understand it as everything has to be about them, it seems.
In the case of Niger coup, we still don't know the reasons.
Yet if President Bazoum had forced generals into retirement and it's alleged that he was trying to retire the 62-year old general Tchiani, wouldn't that be a reason for the general to do a military coup and then get support for by playing the populist / anti-colonialism card?
Or these US trained officers just suddenly felt this anti-colonial vibe and went for it?
And isn't Bazoum then trying to influence the US when he is asking them for help and portraying that Wagner is behind it?
Besides, the real danger is if ECOWAS really would go with it's ultimatum and the nations would go to war, which is totally catastrophic.
France and it's relation especial to the Sahel region and Sub-Saharan Africa is still that kind of traditional.
China is different. You have to sell somewhere the concrete you produce, when you produce in two years as much concrete that the US has produced in the 20th Century. China isn't fighting a war on Terror in Africa. It literally doesn't have the bases. Last time, apart from attacking Indian border guards with sticks, China used it's military was against the Vietnamese and that border war didn't go so well for China. One could say that China can be a bully only with it's close neighbors.
Especially the US is scared about China in Africa, but then again, the Development Aid by the West has been quite similar... and not so effective.
Let's remember that "Development Aid", especially to African countries, is nearly allways a way to substitute your OWN industry and corporations that do the projects. If China goes to Africa and builds a railroad, the workers, engineers and project leaders as the machines will be Chinese. Perhaps the engineer driving the train will be African, but he has had to learn Chinese. And many countries do the same. Development aid isn't similar to an direct investment, somebody believing in the economy of the country (or in the cheap workforce) and investing their money in an business enterprise.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Quoting ssu
I made clear my statement of facts. Read more carefully. And judging a person's internal motivations is a much different thing than judging external events. It's erroneous and weird for you to say otherwise
Quoting ssu
Thsi is a lazy strawman. I haven't viewed everything evolving around the US and Great powers and everybody else being puppets. i have correctly shown where this has occurred. Your rosy-colored view of the US and Europes "Great Powers," however have kept you from doing so...and glaringly
Quoting ssu
This is an outright lie. Go ahead and tell the people of Vietnam, Chile, Australia, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Congo, and others that these countries only TRY to influence states...the numerous coups, wars, and bombings they have sufferec from these "great powers"--and the millions of deaths they caused--greatly say otherwise
Quoting ssu
We have great idea what the reasons are. And no, the reason you propose is purely selfish. You really think the people of Niger want France and US there to take their uranium and their soldiers there to threaten and kill them...odd considering how offended you are by Russia's presence in Ukraine (The Russian Ukrainians of the Donbass certainly want them there), and how much you support the Maidan coup (you clearly aren't opposed to coups).
Quoting ssu
Question 1: I never said that...you really do like to strawman people...not a good habit for a Philosophical debater
Question 2: No
Ecowas statement: No
Quoting magritte
Yes, and Niger has been a genuine popular uprising and the Maidan coup was a para-military/Right Wing militia, US backed military coup
However, you said you were opposed to coups, period. So, you're either a hypocrite, or your criticism of the Niger coup has no validity
I guess to fight GWOT. Or whatever under the Biden administration it is called.
As it's centrally located in the Sahel and up until now has been rather stable, it (the US) has a drone base in Agadez (Air Base 201) in the country and has about 1000 soldiers in the country. (The French basically have had their troops in the Niamey airport.) Being next to Mali, Libya, Algeria, Chad and Nigeria makes it a good place for drones that still have a limited range.
The war against the islamists came up in 2017 when a group of US special forces were ambushed in Niger close to the Malian border.
Just why the GWOT or fight against the islamist has been a train wreck is great issue to talk about.
Just what have you correctly shown? What you have said is "Sorry, but the Niger coup against America, France, and their puppet government has the backing of the Niger people and is not evil". And then you have referred to Ukraine and Hungary.
That's not much and not very informative.
It's funny how SSU is so concerned about the sovereign borders of Ukraine, but cares nothing for the sovereign borders and sovereignty of Niger...or any other countries sovereignty the US has violated
Do only white European countries get to have sovereign borders and sovereignty? That would be pretty sad
Yes, what i have shown there is correct. Feel free to show otherwise...you haven't yet
Because the US didn't attack Niger. Or it hasn't annexed parts of Niger.
It asked and was given permission and then build the base starting in 2016 for Nigerien armed forces too. Niger then was feeling the pressure from islamists from Mali and Boko Haram from Nigeria.
And then, after many years, things has gotten worse and not much had improved. As I stated with example of the Dogon and the herders or Azawad, not everything is about islamists in the Sahel. Which has been the basic problem. I'm not sure if you have much knowledge just how his war has evolved.
Now perhaps it can ask for the US to leave, as it has asked the French to leave.
US might have to leave the Sahel like it had to leave Central Asia and the stans (not only Afghanistan).
Quoting ssu
The US doesn't have to attack Niger or annex to violate their sovereignty; it's very naive of you to think they do. They have bases and troops there against the people of Niger's wishes, they are trying to meddle in Niger's government throught Blinken and Nuland...Nuland even made implicit threats against Niger if they didn't turn the government back over to the deposed ruler....that is absolutely disregard and violation of sovereignty. The US is doing the same thing in Syria where they have multiple unwanted bases and soldiers where they steal Syria's oil
Quoting ssu
It asked and was given permission by their puppet ruler. You clearly must think the Donbass just asked for Russias help when they separated from Kiev. Ironic. And the main threats haven't been their neighbors, but the American backed jihadists, many of whom France just freed to continue their colonizing, sovereignty-denying terrorism of Niger
I'm not sure you have much knowledge of everything, you've spouted such naive NATO/American jingoism
Again the obsession of puppets.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Like what a failure the war on Terror has been? How bad it has gone?
Right, thta's American jingoism. Likely you don't care to read what I actually say. But seems you see puppets everywhere.
Quoting ssu
Nope: correct assessment of the situation...again, you're glaringly wrong
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
You literally said American only TRIES to influence states and the actions are limited. Tell that to Afghanistan, Syria, Libya...and Niger; their actions there and many other places were hardly "limited". So, i clearly read what you actually said..,you clearly didn't
This has been an interesting and informative thread. Your input has been helpful and informative. But you're disrupting things. Stop impugning motives and intentions and argue the facts. It undermines your arguments.
I don't believe I have been doing that
However, if you can show me where I have been impugning motived and intentions instead of arguing the facts, I would gladly correct that
I have no desire to disrupt things
This is the worst of the bunch.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Quoting T Clark
Well, if that is the worst of the bunch, i've been far more courteous than some of my interlocutors who have accused me of being a Putin puppet....which is definitely impugning my motives. You should correct them as well
I will, however, avoid calling people liars unless they clearly lie about me
1. And Afghanistan is an Islamic Emirate today.
2. Syria is still being lead by Bashar al-Assad with basically the civil war now won by him and neighboring states starting to normalize their relations.
3. Yes, Libya is a mess...and there's a multitude of countries involved. Basically so-called allies of the US are on different sides supporting different groups.
So look yourself at how that influencing has gone. I will remain with my words: the US TRIES TO influence states, it doesn't control them and they aren't the helpless victims as you think they are in the face of your country. Clearly the World doesn't go the way people in Washington DC want it to go.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Western countries, just like the ECOWAS, condemn military overthrows. Condemnation and sanctions are one thing. A military intervention or military action is quite different. We haven't yet seen what will happen in Niger, yet in the example of Mali, they just left. Yet there is the threat that this could get out of hand.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Here is a perfect example of your totally ignorant attitude about the reality on the ground. Or then you simply paint with such broad strokes your World that it doesn't make much sense (other than US bad, those who oppose the US are good).
The US isn't doing the "same thing" in the countries of Sahel as it has done with Syria. With Syria Obama tried to start a war against the regime, but didn't get any of it's allies with it and backed down (Obama's famous line in the sand). Then Trump attacked Syrian armed forces (an airbase). And the US had an absolute fiasco of trying to form a "politically correct" opposition fighters to fight the Syrian regime, which basically feared more about the fighters themselves being islamists or that the weapons would go to islamists. And lastly it went to Syria to fight ISIS and has quarelled with Wagner troops there. Syria has been an absolute trainwreck for the US.
The Sahel countries are different.
Yet the US hasn't attacked Nigerien forces. It has trained these forces, and these generals, that now took over. But for you such difference seem not to matter. Because Nigerien leaders have been puppets, not politicians that have faced a huge tasks with their countries. You know the facts and others are just American jingoists.
1. So what. That's their issue, not ours. You clearly dont' care about national sovereignty or sovereign borders. We/NATO certainly didn't help things by killing thosands of Afghani civilians, backing monstrous Afghan warlords, and stealing 7 billions of their money
Quoting ssu
2. Again you show you care nothing about a nation's sovereignty and yet complain about Russia violating Ukraines. Odd. That is Syria's business not ours, and we certainly didn't help things by bombing Syria, killing thousands of Syrians and backing head-chopping Jihadists to kill more Syrians
Quoting ssu
3. Libya isn't just a mess; its' destroyed and has slave trades and had been one of the most economically advanced countries in Africa...before we violated their sovereignty and bombed and destroyed it. Again, we had no right to do that. It wasn't our country and we/NATO destroyed it. Lovely
Quoting ssu
And again, bombing and destroying countries--or threatening or sanctioning them--ISN'T JUST TRYING to influence them...it is fascistically imposing our will on sovereign nations through violence, murder, and terror
Quoting ssu
This is hilarious. The US has pushed--often very successfully--coups in Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine, Australia, and many other countries...just this year in Pakistan. Where do you get your world history from?
Quoting ssu
No, the ignorance is https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/syria.htmall yours here, and here's proof:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/syria.htm
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-military-still-stealing-oil-syria/5790752
Quoting ssu
They certainly are as far as keeping unwanted bases and troops in another sovereign country. Do you think it would be OK for Niger to have bases and soldiers in the US? I don't
Quoting ssu
Again, it wasn't their country. They had no right being there. Again, you are showing no care for sovereignty at all. And not wanting to send in murderous jihadists--which they did anyway--isn't just being "politically correct." It is keeping your illegal invasion less murderous than it already is
Quoting ssu
It is certainly insinuating they will attack now, and the forces they trained don't want them anymore. And I am not calling you a jingoist, I am correctly saying what you are SAYING is American jingoism with no respect for national sovereignty at all. Your arguments make it clear you think America has the right to violate that sovereignty as they have done for almost a century
And to say I don't care about differences is erroneously impugning my motives instead of addressing my points
Lol :lol:
Says the person that has written on nationality sovereignty and sovereign borders this:
And...
So for you, sovereign borders don't apply ...in some cases. Some aggressors are understood.
Whereas for me the sovereignty of the states, and there borders, is important. Of course there are problems like those who don't have a nation like the Kurds, so borders can be redrawn, hopefully peacefully. At least sticking to territorial integrity is one way to make the World less violent than it is. Hence I was against Operation Iraqi Freedom and think that the reasoning of invading Afghanistan and the reasoning was absolutely crazy. And if now ECOWAS with French or US assistance would go into Niger, I would oppose it. (But I guess you haven't noticed it)
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Obviously you don't seem to read what I write, but simply attack something you intend me being.
(And when was there a US sponsored military coup in Australia? Or are you referring to the Rum Rebellion? I don't think the US was involved, but you have to enlighten me.)
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Again a strawman as I've never said that. Or thought. I was on the previous Philosophy Forum site arguing with Americans defending President Bush's decision to invade Iraq as a wrongful move.
Sorry, I shouldn't be lecturing you. I've been known to do that. It's just that I've really been enjoying this discussion and I didn't want it to turn into a mess.
Quoting Aug 2, 2023
Russian flags, "Vive Putin", etc, in the middle of Africa? (contrasting Georgia) Hmm... :chin: Wagner is present [sup](Jul 6, 2023 ? check photos)[/sup], there are well-known links, but no further material evidence (that I know of). Then Putin himself to the rescue:
Putin stresses need for peaceful resolution in Niger coup in call with Mali leader
[sup] Jessie Gretener, Uliana Pavlova, Duarte Mendonca, Larry Madowo, Vasco Cotovio · CNN · Aug 15, 2023[/sup]
By the way, some earlier get-togethers with African leaders didn't go quite as he may have preferred [sup](Jun 18, 2023; Jul 27, 2023)[/sup].
But have to say that it's Prigozhin's Wagner, which is active in Mali and CAR makes it all quite puzzling.
Hope the ideas of military incursion to Niger simply fade away. That's at least avoiding the worst possible catastrophy.
Reading your very helpful suggestions and some of what I can find here, in general there can be many reasons for the string of coups in Africa but none of them is that military rule is better at solving the safety and economic realities of the region or that it has the support of the general population. The same military that was there constitutionally before the coup is still the one there unconstitutionally after the coup, and the presence of international troops only emphasizes their weakness to deal with internal security issues.
My search engine is feeding me US analysis which sees foreign affairs as continued East-West conflict. Perhaps it's fair to accuse this approach of paranoia, nevertheless history has shown the effectiveness of such polarizing presumptions. Russia and China, just like the US at times, has worked hard to take advantage of fragile circumstances in third world or developing nations, whether through friendly economic exchange, loans and technical assistance, or through the supply of arms in exchange for natural resources.
Ukraine is trying to send grain and sunflower oil to Africa, Russia is bombing those export depots. Russia is Africa's main arms supplier. In the Sahel, apparently arms and military support work better.
Then there is this instant military alliance that will defend Niger in war. How did this alliance come about so quickly unless it was prearranged by a foreign power?
The latest fighting has been because of a power struggle inside the armed forces, between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) lead by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo and known as Hemedti and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the commander of the armed forces.
Some might remember the outcry in 2003 about the war in Darfur. The paramilitary Janjaweed responsible of a genocidal attack against the Darfuri people later was formed into the RSF, which was directly responsible to the former president Omar al-Bashir.
Here's a quick 5-minute recap of what has happened in Sudan (from some months ago, but still current:
Sudan has had 15 military coups since it's independence and even regions that have detached from it (South Sudan) haven't had good luck politically. Now it really is on the road to become a bigger failed state than Somalia. It seems that the fighting has again started in Darfur.
(Earlier the officers got on together, here next to each other from the left:)
In Western countries we assume that the armed forces are basically one single entity, but where there is the possibility of a military coup, the leadership fearing a coup usually divides on purpose the armed forces to separate organizations that basically are against each other in order to avoid a coup. Sudan is one example of infighting inside the armed forces, but the actually so is Russia (with the Prigozhin mutiny). Such arrangements many times make things worse.
Now it is estimated that about 1 million have fled the country.
1. Niger's military junta wants the French ambassador to talk with the foreign minister of the junta.
2. The French ambassador declines this.
3. The junta shows the door to the ambassador and wants him out.
4. The French decline to send back their ambassador.
Meanwhile ECOWAS says that the possibility of a military intervention is still on the table. The idea of an military intervention is widely not liked (which shows sound judgement as the poor countries are in no position to start a war with Niger, or with more countries). But there are the 1500 French troops in the airport of Niamey, which basically is nearly surrounded by neighborhoods of the Capital.
Let's hope there isn't a spark that causes an ugly incident.
Let's see what the outcome will be. At least Macron is pretty sure that the French have been important in their own former colonies:
The ambassador might go. How about the 1500 French military in the Niamey airport?
* * *
And there has been another military coup in a former French colony in Africa. Gabon isn't in the Sahel, but the circumstances do have similarities with the Sahel countries (Mali, Niger, Chad). It's interesting to see how the commentaries here are hopeful and positive about the coup as usually we think of military taking over the government bad. But at least once even in Niger a military coup did bring elections and democracy and not a military ruler (another example of a coup restoring democracy is the Portuguese coup in the 1970's).
The discussion below opens up the broader question of the role of France in it's former colonies, and how France can be said to be the colonizer that never left:
Russias African coup strategy
[sup] Clint Watts · Microsoft Threat Analysis Center · Sep 1, 2023[/sup]
What I think is happening is Russia quickly responding to a situation, not being behind it. And they have fine intelligence services that can easily do the above. It would go off to the tinfoil-hat territory to think Russia is behind these coups (like saying that the Ukrainian revolution of dignity was a US formed coup like Operation Ajax).
The reasons for having this "Military coup" - festival in the former French colonies are that a) successful ones have been examples for others, b) there being so many coups that France and other African countries cannot single out one country, hence c) the juntas have immediately backers in neighboring countries, the other military juntas. And finally d) anti-French sentiment is high in these countries, hence being in this way "populist", the juntas have gotten immediate support for them.
As both armed forces of Niger and Mali (and Burkina Faso) have gotten extensive support and training from France and the US and have an islamist problem, the aid coming from the West is important for them (and Russia won't come the help there), I think Russia is simply one actor trying to improve it's situation in the area with few actual resources. It's not the Soviet Union and especially now with the war in Ukraine, it hasn't got a lot of ability to take center stage in Africa. It might take the stage as it has done in the Middle East, being one actor in Syria.
In the long run this can indeed have dramatic outcomes for France in Africa. Will France have to finally leave it's colonies? That nothing has happened, the French ambassador seems to be still in the country, shows that the Nigerien junta doesn't want to pick a fight with France. And French hasn't attempted a military response ...yet. Even if the Junta is fearing that France in contemplating an intervention. Yet France has a very weak foot in the Sahel and cannot just pick a fight without allies. Hopefully sound reasoning prevails.
If there starts a media campaign on how vicious the Nigerien junta is (or something similar), then I would start to get worried. Yet there is the possibility still of some unintentional (or intentional) accident happening: French troops are situated in the Niamey airport, which is next to the capital.
Or not even with a whimper, as Ts Elliot put it, France left Niger. Last Friday the last French troops left Niger. France also closed it's embassy indefinately. And no ECOWAS war, additionally. Now Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso try to deal with the muslim extremist together. The Wagner debacle didn't make Russia to look so promising after all.
Niger junta = 1
France = 0
In fact, unlike in the coverage of France24, Al Jazeera notes that how this withdrawal notes a long transition from French colonization, even if some French troops are still in neighboring Chad. Otherwise the Sahel region is empty from French military.
And of course, there's not much enthusiasm for the French troops in Chad either.
What is worth mentioning is that Niger hasn't severed it's relations with the West totally. US troops are still there and German troops continue their presence. Yet it's understandable that either the US or Germany have no colonial link to Niger or the Sahel.
Yet it's obvious that France hasn't anymore the aspirations to hold on to it's former colonial states as earlier. In that way, it's likely to take similar stance as the UK towards it's past colonies.
(Last French plane out from Niger. Not at least in the middle of the night as US had in Afghanistan.)
Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso withdraw from West Africa regional bloc ECOWAS as tensions deepen
[sup] Chinedu Asadu · AP · Jan 28, 2024[/sup]