Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
An official of the West African bloc of nations says 11 countries in the region have agreed to commit troops to a military deployment aimed at restoring Niger’s democratically elected president following last month’s coup.
The difference is that the west outsourced the war to the Africans. It’s probably costs more than direct intervention but they get a compliant country that they can use for profits and whatever else, and none of the risk to human life. I wouldn’t call that progress, just neocolonialism
That’s a pretty cynical world view. The president was democratically elected by Nigeriens and has support from the majority of the public. Speculation suggests that General Abdourahamane Tchiani initiated the coup because he’s 62 and was about to be dismissed from his position in the government. He cites security risks that were ignored near Niger’s borders, but there’s not been much evidence of that.
Sure it helps the West to have a more stable, democratic president at the helm of the country you could trade with, but that doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily exploiting the country. France wants to ensure that their supply of uranium fuel isn’t disrupted and the idea of cutting off the export of uranium to the rest of the world was floated by Tchiani. Without the uranium exports, Niger’s net international trade value drops by 15% (-$1.75B to -$2B).
The world is way more exploitative than you seem to recognize. I suggest researching unequal exchange.
“Beyond this, outright corruption has also played a part in maintaining the postcolonial order. Françafrique has comprised countries notorious for human rights violations, including Niger. Subservient puppet leaders ignored democratic progress in return for massive aid programmes. Bribes have been paid via arms deals and other help with security, and – of course – in hard cash that has been laundered.”
The difference is that the west outsourced the war to the Africans. It’s probably costs more than direct intervention but they get a compliant country that they can use for profits and whatever else, and none of the risk to human life. I wouldn’t call that progress, just neocolonialism
That’s a pretty cynical world view. The president was democratically elected by Nigeriens and has support from the majority of the public. Speculation suggests that General Abdourahamane Tchiani initiated the coup because he’s 62 and was about to be dismissed from his position in the government. He cites security risks that were ignored near Niger’s borders, but there’s not been much evidence of that.
Sure it helps the West to have a more stable, democratic president at the helm of the country you could trade with, but that doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily exploiting the country. France wants to ensure that their supply of uranium fuel isn’t disrupted and the idea of cutting off the export of uranium to the rest of the world was floated by Tchiani. Without the uranium exports, Niger’s net international trade value drops by 15% (-$1.75B to -$2B).
The world is way more exploitative than you seem to recognize. I suggest researching unequal exchange.
“Beyond this, outright corruption has also played a part in maintaining the postcolonial order. Françafrique has comprised countries notorious for human rights violations, including Niger. Subservient puppet leaders ignored democratic progress in return for massive aid programmes. Bribes have been paid via arms deals and other help with security, and – of course – in hard cash that has been laundered.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/05/niger-crisis-france-empire-africa-coup-colony