In Niger, anti-French protests were frequently banned by Mr Bazoum's administration.
Several civil society groups began escalating anti-French protests in mid-2022, when Mr Bazoum's administration approved the redeployment of France's Barkhane forces to Niger after they had been ordered to leave Mali.
Key among them is the M62 movement, formed in August 2022 by a coalition of activists, civil society movements and trade unions. They led calls against the rising cost of living, poor governance and the presence of the French forces.
Various planned protests by the group were banned or violently put down by Niger's authorities with its leader Abdoulaye Seydou jailed for nine months in April 2023 for "disrupting public order".
The M62 appears revitalised in the wake of President Bazoum's removal.
In an unusual move, its members were quoted by state TV mobilising mass protests in support of the junta, as well as denouncing sanctions by West African leaders over the coup.
So, it seems that the coup may have widespread popular support. It's not surprising if so, the previous decade+ of French/US backed governments and French (and to a lesser extent US) military presence has only served to set these countries aflame.
We have ECOWAS and the Burkina Faso/Mali/Guinea/Niger bloc each threatening collective warfare on the other, the underlying regional war with al-Qaeda and IS, overlaid with the broader struggle between US/NATO and Russia. This region has gradually descended into chaos and warfare since the destruction of the state of Libya by the US in 2011 - which France was the main cheerleader for. In a lot of ways this feels like the last twelve years of history coming to a climactic point.
I hope ECOWAS backs down.
I'm not sure where you are drawing the idea of widespread popular support from there. I see nothing there about the extent of the support for M62.
They are, however, very pro-military-coup. Which should be immediately concerning.
Also Bazoum seems to have been trying to force the general who led the coup into retirement when this all went down. Which suggests some motives for the coup beyond the stated "government mismanagement" stuff.
Sure. Personal relations often play a role, that would not surprise me.
Anyway it's not like we can get polling data, but when it is reported that various civil society groups and trade unions came out in favor of the coup it raises an eyebrow at least. It's not something I usually read about coups in North Africa, at any rate.
But I dunno, the reporting from US/UK media in general so far is giving me the impression that a not-inconsiderable portion of Nigeriens, particularly in the capital where there is more reporting, support the coup and/or the expulsion of France. Maybe I'm under the wrong impression, I did say "may have," i.e. there are things that make me think this might be the case, but I do not know that it is, or to what degree. But that's the vibe based on media reporting so far IMO.
Also, regarding the decline in deaths due to warfare in Niger in 2022. I don't know that this is a result of the success of the president/government policies. The region of Mali that borders Niger saw a massive expansion in violence over the same time period, and Islamic State Greater Sahara took over significant rural territory in that region of northeast Mali. In 2021, ISGS was responsible for at least some portion of the drastic rise in violence in western Niger (I suspect a large portion but haven't found a breakdown of deaths by actor).
Starting at the beginning of 2022, the French began moving their Operation Barkhane military force of a few thousand soldiers from Mali to Niger - i.e. from the region which then experienced a drastic rise in violence, to the region which subsequently experienced a moderate decline in violent deaths. So, military movements in the regional war seem to me a much more likely primary cause than Nigerien government programs. Which isn't to say those programs had no effect or are not a good thing or whatever. But tinwhiskers asked "why the sudden spike in 2022" regarding Mali earlier, given where the fighting was occurring I suspect the answer to both questions are the same.
This seems to undercut your argument that the presence of French forces is causing increases in violence.
I don't think so. When a foreign power engaged in counter-insurgency/anti-guerrilla warfare withdraws from territory it held, an increase in violence in the ensuing period isn't unexpected. This war took over a decade to reach this level, and it's hard to picture how it could be resolved quickly given the nature of AQ and IS.
My argument is not that the French withdrawal will necessarily lead to a reduction in violence or an end to the war, but that a French withdrawal is necessary if there is to be any realistic chance of bringing an end the war in the long term. I argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here. I mean look at the past two decades on the broad scale, or even just the last decade of France in North Africa. Is it your opinion that these policies (Global War on Terror and its French neo-colonial version) have been a success overall, and that the US and France should keep doing them?
So the English language media is doing a truly atrocious job reporting on this. It's like 90% propaganda and 10% legitimate information.
One canard I keep seeing in articles from various outlets is "US law prevents the US from arming a country where a military coup has taken place."
This is not true. It is obviously not true, and these writers must know it, unless they are somehow unaware of the existence of Egypt (to choose one example). What the "law" actually says is that if the US government declares a coup to have taken place in a country, then it can not arm that country. Whether or not to make such a declaration is entirely up to the executive branch of the US government. Thus, whether or not to arm a country where a coup has taken place is just a matter of whether or not the US government wants to - the 'law' changes literally nothing, it is just meant as something for NYT and WaPo to quote for credulous Americans who don't pay attention.
Most articles, rather than sincerely attempt to investigate and explain what led to the coup, instead distract by repeating rumors about palace politics in Niamey. Within the last 5 years or so, four countries, each a host for French and/or US "counterterrorism" warfare, each slowly falling into ruin, overthrow their pro-French governments in military coups and realign geopolitically. Why? Well, this general in Niamey didn't like this other general. Come on now. Personal politics plays a role and such rivalries may indeed have been a causative factor here, but it's pretty clear that there is a wider phenomenon at work, and pointing to personal feuding as the primary cause is intentionally misleading. (edit- actually I don't think Guinea is necessarily a ruinous battleground for French forces and salafi-jihadists; but that applies to the other three)
WSJ approvingly quoted the US as arguing that Nigeriens have been tricked by Russian disinformation on social media. The disinformation? That their country has become less secure during the French/US tenure. In reality, that is an easily verifiable, demonstrably true fact. Would take a second of googling. I do not think Nigeriens need the Russians to inform them of this, and in any case it is not "misinformation." To be frank, this reeked of an age old European justification/explanation for their wars of conquest in Africa: "those dumb Africans do not understand that our Civilizing Mission is to their benefit."
Another accused Nigeriens of "scapegoating" France. Poor France, always scapegoated by those nefarious North/West African countries that they colonized and are currently at war in.
Here's a decent article with some useful data. Also I recommend the source highly, as far as English language reporting on this region of Africa goes, HumAngle is by far the best I've found. There's a visually superior layout of this data in the article, but for context on the how bad things have gotten across such a wide area, relatively quickly, here is confirmed deaths per year per country. Safe to say it's an undercount because this is just individuals confirmed to have died, you all know how it goes.
edit - Nigeria is included in that but follows a different trend, it's not really part of the same conflict/set of conflicts. Although that is changing with ISWAP, and the two insurgency zones could connect if IS and AQ continue to spread.
Any of the reporting I've read has been saying things have been getting worse along the Sahel. In Niger and in other countries that have territory in or bordering the region as well. Though numbers from the African Center of Strategic Studies says that fatalities are actually down 50% even though the number of incidents in Niger is up.
Perhaps more importantly to the overall picture here, shit is not going better in places under military rule or where Wagner and the Russians have been gaining influence in place of France.
I saw that "incidents up, fatalities down" thing too, wasn't sure what exactly to make of that.
I do agree with your point here. I am not making a positive argument that the coup will improve Niger's situation. The central claim I am making in this thread, so far, is this: the French military presence in North Africa is the primary cause of the regional warfare with salafi-jihadists, and that an end to the French war in its former North African colonies is necessary for an eventual peace. Regardless I do not picture a peaceful Sahel in the near future in any easily imagined circumstances.
Kaputa on
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Something did change. Niger had its first ever democratic transfer of power in 2021 and the new government successly decreased deaths to violence over the last two years. And now that government has been overthrown by a general to avoid getting fired by the civilian government.
How much power was transferred? The previous guy picked his successor and then resigned, his successor won. The opposition claimed the election was filled with fraud and that Mazoum's victory was false/illegitimate. Protests and riots spread throughout the cities and were violently quelled. The leader of the opposition party who came in 2nd was imprisoned for supposedly being behind the demonstrations.
Well, okay. Presumably there were international observers. Did they comment?
Something did change. Niger had its first ever democratic transfer of power in 2021 and the new government successly decreased deaths to violence over the last two years. And now that government has been overthrown by a general to avoid getting fired by the civilian government.
How much power was transferred? The previous guy picked his successor and then resigned, his successor won. The opposition claimed the election was filled with fraud and that Mazoum's victory was false/illegitimate. Protests and riots spread throughout the cities and were violently quelled. The leader of the opposition party who came in 2nd was imprisoned for supposedly being behind the demonstrations.
Well, okay. Presumably there were international observers. Did they comment?
All I found in my initial reading was ECOWAS (who is currently threatening to invade) endorsing the election in some fashion. Couldn't find anything about UN observers or what have you, in a brief search, but I'm not certain. Given that there currently are two rival regional blocs and ECOWAS is one of them I'm not sure how much weight to give their assessment. I've not forgotten the example of the Organisation of American States regarding Bolivia/Evo Morales.
edit - here is an interview with one of the two main opposition candidates, both of whom say the election was fraudulent, but again I do not know whether or not that is true or to what degree it is true.
Kaputa on
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Something did change. Niger had its first ever democratic transfer of power in 2021 and the new government successly decreased deaths to violence over the last two years. And now that government has been overthrown by a general to avoid getting fired by the civilian government.
How much power was transferred? The previous guy picked his successor and then resigned, his successor won. The opposition claimed the election was filled with fraud and that Mazoum's victory was false/illegitimate. Protests and riots spread throughout the cities and were violently quelled. The leader of the opposition party who came in 2nd was imprisoned for supposedly being behind the demonstrations.
Well, okay. Presumably there were international observers. Did they comment?
All I found in my initial reading was ECOWAS (who is currently threatening to invade) endorsing the election in some fashion. Couldn't find anything about UN observers or what have you, in a brief search, but I'm not certain. Given that there currently are two rival regional blocs and ECOWAS is one of them I'm not sure how much weight to give their assessment. I've not forgotten the example of the Organisation of American States regarding Bolivia/Evo Morales.
You mean the one where Morales's own audit found the election to be fraudulent in his favor?
Something did change. Niger had its first ever democratic transfer of power in 2021 and the new government successly decreased deaths to violence over the last two years. And now that government has been overthrown by a general to avoid getting fired by the civilian government.
How much power was transferred? The previous guy picked his successor and then resigned, his successor won. The opposition claimed the election was filled with fraud and that Mazoum's victory was false/illegitimate. Protests and riots spread throughout the cities and were violently quelled. The leader of the opposition party who came in 2nd was imprisoned for supposedly being behind the demonstrations.
Well, okay. Presumably there were international observers. Did they comment?
All I found in my initial reading was ECOWAS (who is currently threatening to invade) endorsing the election in some fashion. Couldn't find anything about UN observers or what have you, in a brief search, but I'm not certain. Given that there currently are two rival regional blocs and ECOWAS is one of them I'm not sure how much weight to give their assessment. I've not forgotten the example of the Organisation of American States regarding Bolivia/Evo Morales.
You mean the one where Morales's own audit found the election to be fraudulent in his favor?
What I remember is, OAS asserted fraud during a right wing coup against Morales, then NYT later reports that OAS made it all up. I'm not familiar with the audit, if you link me a story about it it I will read it and it may alter my view on that (though that coup was a bad thing either way).
Regardless, if we're assessing election integrity I'd rather see UN than ECOWAS in this case due to the regional politics involved.
[
I do agree with your point here. I am not making a positive argument that the coup will improve Niger's situation. The central claim I am making in this thread, so far, is this: the French military presence in North Africa is the primary cause of the regional warfare with salafi-jihadists, and that an end to the French war in its former North African colonies is necessary for an eventual peace. Regardless I do not picture a peaceful Sahel in the near future in any easily imagined circumstances.
I guess I'd say that the presence of salafi-jihadists is the primary cause of conflict pretty much anywhere they exist.
The ideology is every bit as violence generating as any communist guerilla movement or right wing nationalist group. It's reason d'etre is a violent take over of the state and imposition of its ideology.
In that way for most people(especially women) living under such groups is just as colonizing a presence as a foreign power.
argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
Well, no need to relitigate Afghanistan in this thread.
But here I do not believe that it is a given that the alternatives are French hegemony or an al-Qaeda victory. Things get closer to that point with each year of Barkhane, though. Which is why I hope a change in course is possible if malign French influence and military activity in North & West Africa can be ended or at least mitigated. I want these African states to defeat al-Qaeda and IS; a "terrorist victory" is what has been slowly happening under the French approach.
argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
Well, no need to relitigate Afghanistan in this thread.
But here I do not believe that it is a given that the alternatives are French hegemony or an al-Qaeda victory. Things get closer to that point with each year of Barkhane, though. Which is why I hope a change in course is possible if malign French influence and military activity in North & West Africa can be ended or at least mitigated. I want these African states to defeat al-Qaeda and IS; a "terrorist victory" is what has been slowly happening under the French approach.
I guess I fail to see how states who were battling these groups with French military support, and tired jokes aside the French are a capable expeditionary military power, will somehow fair better without that support.
e:I guess I do see a path to that, but it probably involves a level of brutality by these militaries well beyond anything the French forces were doing. For all that is wrong with drone strikes and special operations raids. sending in infantry forces to achieve the same goals rarely ends in fewer casualties.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Find out some way "the West" is even tangentially involved and then work your way back to how they're to blame for literally any situation.
This is a hilarious thing to say about a former colony
Especially about the French who get mega mad over any perceived national slight, I don't know if youve heard about a place called Haiti
Or more recent events Algeria
It's not always the west fucking around but a lot of times it still is lmao
argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
Well, no need to relitigate Afghanistan in this thread.
But here I do not believe that it is a given that the alternatives are French hegemony or an al-Qaeda victory. Things get closer to that point with each year of Barkhane, though. Which is why I hope a change in course is possible if malign French influence and military activity in North & West Africa can be ended or at least mitigated. I want these African states to defeat al-Qaeda and IS; a "terrorist victory" is what has been slowly happening under the French approach.
Describing the situation as "French hegemony" is absurd. Niger is not under a colonial government. It is not a puppet state. France does not dictate Nigerien domestic policy (or even foreign policy probably!). France is providing military and economic assistance because they have economic and historical reasons for doing so, and Niger is voluntarily accepting that assistance because it is helpful.
That said, I think it would be better for Africa in general if ECOWAS was able to resolve the situation, peacefully or otherwise, without French or US involvement.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
Well, no need to relitigate Afghanistan in this thread.
But here I do not believe that it is a given that the alternatives are French hegemony or an al-Qaeda victory. Things get closer to that point with each year of Barkhane, though. Which is why I hope a change in course is possible if malign French influence and military activity in North & West Africa can be ended or at least mitigated. I want these African states to defeat al-Qaeda and IS; a "terrorist victory" is what has been slowly happening under the French approach.
I guess I fail to see how states who were battling these groups with French military support, and tired jokes aside the French are a capable expeditionary military power, will somehow fair better without that support.
e:I guess I do see a path to that, but it probably involves a level of brutality by these militaries well beyond anything the French forces were doing. For all that is wrong with drone strikes and special operations raids. sending in infantry forces to achieve the same goals rarely ends in fewer casualties.
From what I've read anyway, that seems like how it's turned out with the French presence gone. They are replaced by people like Wagner or local groups and the level of brutality goes up.
The French military presence seems like a focus for political anger but it's not what is driving the conflict and their getting kicked out seems to be at best a lateral move in the short term.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Find out some way "the West" is even tangentially involved and then work your way back to how they're to blame for literally any situation.
This is a hilarious thing to say about a former colony
Especially about the French who get mega mad over any perceived national slight, I don't know if youve heard about a place called Haiti
Or more recent events Algeria
It's not always the west fucking around but a lot of times it still is lmao
Dang, Niger used to be a French colony. Welp, I guess that explains everything, case closed.
argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
Well, no need to relitigate Afghanistan in this thread.
But here I do not believe that it is a given that the alternatives are French hegemony or an al-Qaeda victory. Things get closer to that point with each year of Barkhane, though. Which is why I hope a change in course is possible if malign French influence and military activity in North & West Africa can be ended or at least mitigated. I want these African states to defeat al-Qaeda and IS; a "terrorist victory" is what has been slowly happening under the French approach.
Describing the situation as "French hegemony" is absurd. Niger is not under a colonial government. It is not a puppet state. France does not dictate Nigerien domestic policy (or even foreign policy probably!). France is providing military and economic assistance because they have economic and historical reasons for doing so, and Niger is voluntarily accepting that assistance because it is helpful.
That said, I think it would be better for Africa in general if ECOWAS was able to resolve the situation, peacefully or otherwise, without French or US involvement.
You are oversimplifying or ignoring the power relations between France and its former colonies in North/West Africa. We can debate the degree of influence but France and Niger do not negotiate as equals.
I think the idea that French oppression and exploitation of Africa ended with the formal independence of its colonies is somewhat similar to the idea that racial oppression in the US ended with the abolition of slavery. Macron himself recognizes this and early this year said "Francafrique is over," referring to France's post-colonial methods of domination of Africa. I was highly skeptical of his declaration, and remain so, but in some ways the current situation is putting Macron's statement to the test. How does France respond to the growing number of West African governments that it lacks influence over? So far with economic sanctions on very poor countries and threats of war in response to attacks on French "interests". Hopefully that's the extent of it.
argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
Well, no need to relitigate Afghanistan in this thread.
But here I do not believe that it is a given that the alternatives are French hegemony or an al-Qaeda victory. Things get closer to that point with each year of Barkhane, though. Which is why I hope a change in course is possible if malign French influence and military activity in North & West Africa can be ended or at least mitigated. I want these African states to defeat al-Qaeda and IS; a "terrorist victory" is what has been slowly happening under the French approach.
Describing the situation as "French hegemony" is absurd. Niger is not under a colonial government. It is not a puppet state. France does not dictate Nigerien domestic policy (or even foreign policy probably!). France is providing military and economic assistance because they have economic and historical reasons for doing so, and Niger is voluntarily accepting that assistance because it is helpful.
That said, I think it would be better for Africa in general if ECOWAS was able to resolve the situation, peacefully or otherwise, without French or US involvement.
You are oversimplifying or ignoring the power relations between France and its former colonies in North/West Africa. We can debate the degree of influence but France and Niger do not negotiate as equals.
I think the idea that French oppression and exploitation of Africa ended with the formal independence of its colonies is somewhat similar to the idea that racial oppression in the US ended with the abolition of slavery. Macron himself recognizes this and early this year said "Francafrique is over," referring to France's post-colonial methods of domination of Africa. I was highly skeptical of his declaration, and remain so, but in some ways the current situation is putting Macron's statement to the test. How does France respond to the growing number of West African governments that it lacks influence over? So far with economic sanctions on very poor countries and threats of war in response to attacjs on French "interests". Hopefully that's the extent of it.
For example, Italy's colonization over my fatherland was comparatively short but going to Rome, you found whole communities of Italian Somalies who were down with all things Mogadishu and Rome (including the laziest combination of the two). Now Italy is not the player France tries to be, the but the history with Somalia elevated it over other nations and gave them an influx of future Somali intelligentsia supporting Italy economy and keeping their population levels up.
A post colonial France profited from that as immigration routes were more open to former colonies verses other random ass nations. Combined with economic ties (like curry making its way to UK and becoming a cultural foundation) creating a two way demand, Frank and other nations were getting diminished returns from these nations compared to their colonizing days but still benefiting from that past.
Thing is, when Michael Jackson and Milli Vanilli started permeating African culture, that was the beginning of the end of Francafrique. Because if those kids could access that music, they could access technical data. If they could access that, then thats one less thing they do not need French education for. Then they know how to replace expensive french imports for locally and cheaply made products. Then folks started asking, "what did I need france for?"
It's pretty easy to imagine that the French post colonial presence in the Sahel is an easy scapegoat for populist strongmen in the region to use to distract from their inability to tackle more serious issues like desertification, climate change, religious extremism, etc.
I doubt France is going to be able turn perception around, and if they were to use force to reinstall the couped government, it'd just underline the point. As for what France is useful for... I mean, financial liquidity I guess?
I thought that colonial powers ransacking and meddling in african politics was one of those things everyone would agree were bad, but here we are.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
No, what I would expect anyone to say is that they are evacuating all personell until they can assure their safety, not veiled threats of further intervention.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
No, what I would expect anyone to say is that they are evacuating all personell until they can assure their safety, not veiled threats of further intervention.
There was another statement about the evacuation already. They've evacuated just over 1000 people and also told the local security forces to ensure "the security of foreign diplomatic rights of way and diplomatic personnel". Even pointing out these are "obligations under international law, especially under the Vienna Convention."
This is all just standard shit that goes unsaid because everyone know it. A military coup is just an uncertain situation where such things get publicly reiterated for emphasis.
When an extractive power in the process of getting kicked out of its colony trading partner says they wont allow attacks on their interests its a fairly clear message.
When an extractive power in the process of getting kicked out of its colony trading partner says they wont allow attacks on their interests its a fairly clear message.
Yes, the message is "we were allied with the previous government and thus had personnel in the country at their invitation and we are not going to now let you shoot said people just cause you had a coup""
When an extractive power in the process of getting kicked out of its colony trading partner says they wont allow attacks on their interests its a fairly clear message.
Yes, the message is "we were allied with the previous government and thus had personnel in the country at their invitation and we are not going to now let you shoot said people just cause you had a coup""
The issue with that argument is that, well, nobody here would feel too bad about it if Russian civilians in Crimea got shot at.
That being said, at least France is evacuating civilians, instead of encouraging them to go to the damn place.
When an extractive power in the process of getting kicked out of its colony trading partner says they wont allow attacks on their interests its a fairly clear message.
Yes, the message is "we were allied with the previous government and thus had personnel in the country at their invitation and we are not going to now let you shoot said people just cause you had a coup""
The issue with that argument is that, well, nobody here would feel too bad about it if Russian civilians in Crimea got shot at.
That being said, at least France is evacuating civilians, instead of encouraging them to go to the damn place.
France has not invaded Niger. Things have actually changed since the 1940s or even 1980s.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
When an extractive power in the process of getting kicked out of its colony trading partner says they wont allow attacks on their interests its a fairly clear message.
Yes, the message is "we were allied with the previous government and thus had personnel in the country at their invitation and we are not going to now let you shoot said people just cause you had a coup""
The issue with that argument is that, well, nobody here would feel too bad about it if Russian civilians in Crimea got shot at.
That being said, at least France is evacuating civilians, instead of encouraging them to go to the damn place.
So for one, yes, plenty if not almost all of us here would be upset if Ukraine was targeting Russian civilians in Crimea. That's been pretty well expressed and fortunately due to Ukraine's conduct in that war hasn't been an issue.
For two, the two situations have so little in common that comparison is a non sequitur.
It's pretty easy to imagine that the French post colonial presence in the Sahel is an easy scapegoat for populist strongmen in the region to use to distract from their inability to tackle more serious issues like desertification, climate change, religious extremism, etc.
I doubt France is going to be able turn perception around, and if they were to use force to reinstall the couped government, it'd just underline the point. As for what France is useful for... I mean, financial liquidity I guess?
I don't totally disagree, but it's also very easy to imagine (or even to verify, in some respects) that the French have actually been causing harm in North and West Africa.
And these two explanations aren't mutually exclusive. It can be simultaneously true that the French presence in Africa is detrimental to the well being of those peoples, and that politicians in the region unscrupulously exploit anti-French sentiment for their personal interests and power struggles. In fact, I think it's a safe assumption that there is at least some truth to both of these assertions.
“I call for President Bazoum and his family to be immediately released, and for the preservation of Niger’s hard-earned democracy,” the US president said in a statement on Thursday, the 63rd anniversary of Niger’s independence. “In this critical moment, the United States stands with the people of Niger to honour our decades-long partnership rooted in shared democratic values and support for civilian-led governance.”
Second, Senegal says that they are game if it comes to blows:
In the Senegalese capital, Dakar, the foreign minister, Aïssata Tall Sall, told reporters that there had been “one coup too many” in the region and that Senegal would participate if the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) decided to intervene militarily in Niger.
“Senegalese soldiers, for all these reasons, will go there,” she said, citing Senegal’s international commitments. “Senegal’s conviction is that these coups must be stopped.”
Meanwhile, the new Niger government doesn't seem up to back down:
In one of few addresses to the west African country since seizing power from Bazoum, Niger’s democratically elected president, a week ago, Gen Abdourahmane Tchiani warned against foreign meddling and intervention.
Tchiani called on “the people of Niger as a whole and their unity to defeat all those who want to inflict unspeakable suffering on our hard-working populations and destabilise our country”.
And nobody, not even the experts on the matter, can agree on whatever this is going for a hot war or not:
It remains unclear how likely an Ecowas military intervention is. While one western diplomat in Niamey, who did not want to be identified for security reasons, judged it likely, other analysts have suggested that the coup might back down in the face of a credible threat.
Finally, full blown hostage taking is also now a thing:
The M62 Movement, an activist group that has organised pro-Russia and anti-French protests, called for residents in Niamey to mobilise and block the airport until foreign military personnel left the country. “Any evacuation of Europeans [should be] conditional on the immediate departure of foreign military forces,” Mahaman Sanoussi, the national coordinator for the group, said in a statement.
Uh huh, sure. And later is going to be conditional in full removal of sanctions and the international recognition of the post-coup government, and well, I consider unlikely that Macron is going to play that game.
Oh it just came to my attention Niger is one of a handful of major Uranium suppliers to France...
...Shit. France might actually decide to take military action.
I think the number I saw was like 12% which to me doesn’t seem like a high enough number that you can't just buy it somewhere else. Uranium is fungible.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Oh it just came to my attention Niger is one of a handful of major Uranium suppliers to France...
...Shit. France might actually decide to take military action.
But surely an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state will be opposed by the free and democratic states of Europe and North America! Will NATO not rally around Niger's right to decide which militaries are on its soil and who it trades with? Such barbaric aggression cannot be permitted by the rules based international order, imagine the precedent it would set!
(this bitter sarcasm is not aimed at you in particular, I share your fear of a French attack on Niger)
The military junta doesn't have a right to forcibly remove the government. Allies of the legitimate government definitely have justification to restore it and remove the junta by force.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The problem here is going to be whether General Tchiani sees a way out. If not he's going to refuse to back down from the coup.
Also poking through some french language sources, the M62 movement or similar sound like they currently enjoy only minority support. Though a few of them I was reading/watching suggested it could grow.
I'm not sure, given how little time it's been, if we are in any position to judge the lay of the land here. Though in general I think "military coups are bad" is probably a safe position.
A french invasion to reinstate their preferred government, rightful or not, would be a fiasco.
Which is one reason why it would be better if ECOWAS handled it themselves.
So far, from the information we have, it seems that most likely scenario, if it goes to a hot war, is an ECOWAS intervention with French support, given that they are literally having a meeting with all their Defense Ministers, while France has been focused on the evacuation.
The military junta doesn't have a right to forcibly remove the government. Allies of the legitimate government definitely have justification to restore it and remove the junta by force.
No, they do not. Maybe in the HamHamJ Charter they do, but not the United Nations Charter, the basis of international law, which both Niger and France theoretically recognize.
If the United Nations Security Council authorized the use of force, then it would be legally justified. Otherwise, "there was a coup" is not a legal justification for initiating a war, even if you believe that it should be.
edit - also worth noting that the reason given for a prospective invasion (not by France, but in this thread) was not "restore the 'legitimate' government" but "ensure the continued flow of uranium." Which I'm sure no one outside of Paris thinks is a legal reason to invade. But it doesn't matter since neither justification has any more legal weight than the other.
The problem here is going to be whether General Tchiani sees a way out. If not he's going to refuse to back down from the coup.
Also poking through some french language sources, the M62 movement or similar sound like they currently enjoy only minority support. Though a few of them I was reading/watching suggested it could grow.
I'm not sure, given how little time it's been, if we are in any position to judge the lay of the land here. Though in general I think "military coups are bad" is probably a safe position.
I mean I can think of some justified military coups, I'm sure you can too. And I'm sure we can each think of cases where a coup occurring could have good or justifiable, but did not occur. So I don't know if it's that safe a position. Although if reframed as "military coups are usually bad" it might be.
I agree with your overall point, though, and in fact that was part of what I was trying to argue early on. No one in this thread (judging from posts so far, and including myself) knows much about the domestic political situation in Niger. Regarding public support, I think initial reporting from US/UK sources have given the sense that the coup enjoys some support, but what degree and by what parts of the population remains totally unclear to me. So the very lack of knowledge you refer to should make us hesitant to declare one side good and the other(s) bad in a struggle we do not understand. In regard to the political factions of Niger anyway; I think we can safely say that Islamic State Greater Sahara is bad given our general experience...
There was some Twitter freak out about a Nigerian Air Force plane making their way to Niger, but apparently is the one carrying the ECOWAS negotiator team, and is not exactly like they can take business class anymore, or any kind of civilian plane for that matter.
Posts
Anyway it's not like we can get polling data, but when it is reported that various civil society groups and trade unions came out in favor of the coup it raises an eyebrow at least. It's not something I usually read about coups in North Africa, at any rate.
But I dunno, the reporting from US/UK media in general so far is giving me the impression that a not-inconsiderable portion of Nigeriens, particularly in the capital where there is more reporting, support the coup and/or the expulsion of France. Maybe I'm under the wrong impression, I did say "may have," i.e. there are things that make me think this might be the case, but I do not know that it is, or to what degree. But that's the vibe based on media reporting so far IMO.
None needed, I don't mind explaining my position more if it is initially unclear or poorly stated.
My argument is not that the French withdrawal will necessarily lead to a reduction in violence or an end to the war, but that a French withdrawal is necessary if there is to be any realistic chance of bringing an end the war in the long term. I argued that for Afghanistan for many years on this board for similar reasons; in that case the war ended basically the moment the US withdrew, but I doubt we'll get so "lucky" here. I mean look at the past two decades on the broad scale, or even just the last decade of France in North Africa. Is it your opinion that these policies (Global War on Terror and its French neo-colonial version) have been a success overall, and that the US and France should keep doing them?
I saw that "incidents up, fatalities down" thing too, wasn't sure what exactly to make of that.
I do agree with your point here. I am not making a positive argument that the coup will improve Niger's situation. The central claim I am making in this thread, so far, is this: the French military presence in North Africa is the primary cause of the regional warfare with salafi-jihadists, and that an end to the French war in its former North African colonies is necessary for an eventual peace. Regardless I do not picture a peaceful Sahel in the near future in any easily imagined circumstances.
Well, okay. Presumably there were international observers. Did they comment?
edit - here is an interview with one of the two main opposition candidates, both of whom say the election was fraudulent, but again I do not know whether or not that is true or to what degree it is true.
You mean the one where Morales's own audit found the election to be fraudulent in his favor?
Regardless, if we're assessing election integrity I'd rather see UN than ECOWAS in this case due to the regional politics involved.
I guess I'd say that the presence of salafi-jihadists is the primary cause of conflict pretty much anywhere they exist.
The ideology is every bit as violence generating as any communist guerilla movement or right wing nationalist group. It's reason d'etre is a violent take over of the state and imposition of its ideology.
In that way for most people(especially women) living under such groups is just as colonizing a presence as a foreign power.
In Afghanistan the Taliban won and re-instituted their non-democratic government.
Now I am not saying we (or france) should intervene(that is a more complicated question that has more to do with the necessary expenditures and probability of success) but this does not seem to be an ideal outcome and it can be reasonable to prefer western presence over terrorist victory.
It’s like saying abortion clinic violence is down after Dobbs… because there are no abortion clinics anymore. Aren’t we all happy now?
But here I do not believe that it is a given that the alternatives are French hegemony or an al-Qaeda victory. Things get closer to that point with each year of Barkhane, though. Which is why I hope a change in course is possible if malign French influence and military activity in North & West Africa can be ended or at least mitigated. I want these African states to defeat al-Qaeda and IS; a "terrorist victory" is what has been slowly happening under the French approach.
I guess I fail to see how states who were battling these groups with French military support, and tired jokes aside the French are a capable expeditionary military power, will somehow fair better without that support.
e:I guess I do see a path to that, but it probably involves a level of brutality by these militaries well beyond anything the French forces were doing. For all that is wrong with drone strikes and special operations raids. sending in infantry forces to achieve the same goals rarely ends in fewer casualties.
Niger has like two fixed wing air craft I don't think yall should worried about it leaving the western sphere if France cares enough
This is a hilarious thing to say about a former colony
Especially about the French who get mega mad over any perceived national slight, I don't know if youve heard about a place called Haiti
Or more recent events Algeria
It's not always the west fucking around but a lot of times it still is lmao
Describing the situation as "French hegemony" is absurd. Niger is not under a colonial government. It is not a puppet state. France does not dictate Nigerien domestic policy (or even foreign policy probably!). France is providing military and economic assistance because they have economic and historical reasons for doing so, and Niger is voluntarily accepting that assistance because it is helpful.
That said, I think it would be better for Africa in general if ECOWAS was able to resolve the situation, peacefully or otherwise, without French or US involvement.
From what I've read anyway, that seems like how it's turned out with the French presence gone. They are replaced by people like Wagner or local groups and the level of brutality goes up.
The French military presence seems like a focus for political anger but it's not what is driving the conflict and their getting kicked out seems to be at best a lateral move in the short term.
Dang, Niger used to be a French colony. Welp, I guess that explains everything, case closed.
Ah, well that should calm things down
I think the idea that French oppression and exploitation of Africa ended with the formal independence of its colonies is somewhat similar to the idea that racial oppression in the US ended with the abolition of slavery. Macron himself recognizes this and early this year said "Francafrique is over," referring to France's post-colonial methods of domination of Africa. I was highly skeptical of his declaration, and remain so, but in some ways the current situation is putting Macron's statement to the test. How does France respond to the growing number of West African governments that it lacks influence over? So far with economic sanctions on very poor countries and threats of war in response to attacks on French "interests". Hopefully that's the extent of it.
For example, Italy's colonization over my fatherland was comparatively short but going to Rome, you found whole communities of Italian Somalies who were down with all things Mogadishu and Rome (including the laziest combination of the two). Now Italy is not the player France tries to be, the but the history with Somalia elevated it over other nations and gave them an influx of future Somali intelligentsia supporting Italy economy and keeping their population levels up.
A post colonial France profited from that as immigration routes were more open to former colonies verses other random ass nations. Combined with economic ties (like curry making its way to UK and becoming a cultural foundation) creating a two way demand, Frank and other nations were getting diminished returns from these nations compared to their colonizing days but still benefiting from that past.
Thing is, when Michael Jackson and Milli Vanilli started permeating African culture, that was the beginning of the end of Francafrique. Because if those kids could access that music, they could access technical data. If they could access that, then thats one less thing they do not need French education for. Then they know how to replace expensive french imports for locally and cheaply made products. Then folks started asking, "what did I need france for?"
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I doubt France is going to be able turn perception around, and if they were to use force to reinstall the couped government, it'd just underline the point. As for what France is useful for... I mean, financial liquidity I guess?
If you read the statement it's exactly what you'd expect anyone to say: It's almost certainly just in response to the stuff around the french embassy.
There was another statement about the evacuation already. They've evacuated just over 1000 people and also told the local security forces to ensure "the security of foreign diplomatic rights of way and diplomatic personnel". Even pointing out these are "obligations under international law, especially under the Vienna Convention."
This is all just standard shit that goes unsaid because everyone know it. A military coup is just an uncertain situation where such things get publicly reiterated for emphasis.
Yes, the message is "we were allied with the previous government and thus had personnel in the country at their invitation and we are not going to now let you shoot said people just cause you had a coup""
The issue with that argument is that, well, nobody here would feel too bad about it if Russian civilians in Crimea got shot at.
That being said, at least France is evacuating civilians, instead of encouraging them to go to the damn place.
France has not invaded Niger. Things have actually changed since the 1940s or even 1980s.
So for one, yes, plenty if not almost all of us here would be upset if Ukraine was targeting Russian civilians in Crimea. That's been pretty well expressed and fortunately due to Ukraine's conduct in that war hasn't been an issue.
For two, the two situations have so little in common that comparison is a non sequitur.
And these two explanations aren't mutually exclusive. It can be simultaneously true that the French presence in Africa is detrimental to the well being of those peoples, and that politicians in the region unscrupulously exploit anti-French sentiment for their personal interests and power struggles. In fact, I think it's a safe assumption that there is at least some truth to both of these assertions.
...Shit. France might actually decide to take military action.
First, Biden:
Second, Senegal says that they are game if it comes to blows:
Meanwhile, the new Niger government doesn't seem up to back down:
And nobody, not even the experts on the matter, can agree on whatever this is going for a hot war or not:
Finally, full blown hostage taking is also now a thing:
Uh huh, sure. And later is going to be conditional in full removal of sanctions and the international recognition of the post-coup government, and well, I consider unlikely that Macron is going to play that game.
Meanwhile, the Sunday deadline keeps approaching.
I think the number I saw was like 12% which to me doesn’t seem like a high enough number that you can't just buy it somewhere else. Uranium is fungible.
But surely an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state will be opposed by the free and democratic states of Europe and North America! Will NATO not rally around Niger's right to decide which militaries are on its soil and who it trades with? Such barbaric aggression cannot be permitted by the rules based international order, imagine the precedent it would set!
(this bitter sarcasm is not aimed at you in particular, I share your fear of a French attack on Niger)
Also poking through some french language sources, the M62 movement or similar sound like they currently enjoy only minority support. Though a few of them I was reading/watching suggested it could grow.
I'm not sure, given how little time it's been, if we are in any position to judge the lay of the land here. Though in general I think "military coups are bad" is probably a safe position.
Which is one reason why it would be better if ECOWAS handled it themselves.
So far, from the information we have, it seems that most likely scenario, if it goes to a hot war, is an ECOWAS intervention with French support, given that they are literally having a meeting with all their Defense Ministers, while France has been focused on the evacuation.
If the United Nations Security Council authorized the use of force, then it would be legally justified. Otherwise, "there was a coup" is not a legal justification for initiating a war, even if you believe that it should be.
edit - also worth noting that the reason given for a prospective invasion (not by France, but in this thread) was not "restore the 'legitimate' government" but "ensure the continued flow of uranium." Which I'm sure no one outside of Paris thinks is a legal reason to invade. But it doesn't matter since neither justification has any more legal weight than the other.
I mean I can think of some justified military coups, I'm sure you can too. And I'm sure we can each think of cases where a coup occurring could have good or justifiable, but did not occur. So I don't know if it's that safe a position. Although if reframed as "military coups are usually bad" it might be.
I agree with your overall point, though, and in fact that was part of what I was trying to argue early on. No one in this thread (judging from posts so far, and including myself) knows much about the domestic political situation in Niger. Regarding public support, I think initial reporting from US/UK sources have given the sense that the coup enjoys some support, but what degree and by what parts of the population remains totally unclear to me. So the very lack of knowledge you refer to should make us hesitant to declare one side good and the other(s) bad in a struggle we do not understand. In regard to the political factions of Niger anyway; I think we can safely say that Islamic State Greater Sahara is bad given our general experience...
Those are bad news for the coup, since it says a lot about the current state of Niger's economy compared to their neighboors.