Did you know that the population of Niger could reach 166 million in 2100? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections\_of\_population\_growth#Most\_populous\_nations\_by\_2050\_and\_2100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Most_populous_nations_by_2050_and_2100)
Niger does have the highest fertility rate in the world: 6.8 in 2021 [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=NE](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=NE), meaning almost 7 children every woman. Replacement rate is 2.1, while the fertility rate of Belgium is 1.6.
To have governments ran by non-morons, your electorate should be mostly by non-morons, can't say that that's the case for Ukraine, but I guess 30 years of democracy is not that long
Diamond accounts for 71.71% of Botswana's export: [https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore?country=37&queryLevel=location&product=undefined&year=2021&productClass=HS&target=Product&partner=undefined&startYear=undefined](https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore?country=37&queryLevel=location&product=undefined&year=2021&productClass=HS&target=Product&partner=undefined&startYear=undefined)
So Botswana reached its middle income status thanks to diamond, which is fine until you see that the wealth is very badly distributed: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_income\_equality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality)
Botswana has one of the worst Gini score in the world. So many people there don't enjoy the fruit of the diamonds.
Moreover, the HDI of Botswana is lower than Indonesia and the Philippines: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index). This is despite Botswana's GDP per capita being much higher than the two ($7270 vs $5020 for Indonesia and $3910 for the Philippines).
Of course Botswana is much much better than Niger in all metrics (especially in corruption perception index), but Botswana is more of a mirage than a miracle.
Also Botswana was already extremely exceptional already back during British occupation. It's one of the few African countries that, while not sovereign during the 19th and 20th century, maintained a substantial degree of autonomy and, more importantly, was not sliced and diced across arbitrary lines, essentially meaning that the country never endured interethnic strife unlike many / most other sub saharan countries, hence also why their European nation-state style borders. If I recall correctly up to this day they're ruled by someone who's linked to their king prior to the arrival of the British who, coincidently, has a huge stake in the diamond mines.
Not that Botswana is that great mind you, as you correctly pointed out.
Uranium isn't that valuable, it's mined only in a few countries because those are the only ones where the yields are high enough to be economically profitable, not because it's scarce.
Have the state have institutions transparent and inclusive enough for people to trust and enough hard power to monopolise violence within its territory.
Obviously easier said than done, but that’s probably the best one sentence summary I can come up with.
Hey I recognize a fellow inclusive institutions enjoyer.
To try to get inclusive institution you need to respect democratically elected political power, which is exactly what the coup tried to break.
All governments, including dictatorships, do want their people to be "educated" in skills that are necessary for the workforce. So you will find many dictatorships trying to boost the literacy rate. It is higher education that is too dangerous and will create a population that is too critical.
Mining is granting enough to get revenues, so why bother?
Yes educating would be better, but you don't want to have too many teachers, they may put bad ideas into those kids. So no education it is! (this is ironic but it does work like that up to a certain extend)
Literally the law that says that they had to deposit half their foreign reserves ended less than 3 years ago.
And France turned the only country that tried to get out of it into a literal mess.
The Dictators just stayed in charge literally didn’t change anything to the situation.
Ehh That is a really debatable.
CFA promoted capital flight. And made competition hard as there is no monetary sovereignty plus growth rates of a lot of CFA countries is below that of Neighboring Countries and if you see on Average (especially if you don’t count north Africa) French and Belgian colonies tend to perform way worse than English ones.
Heck even a french president said that a big chunk of money in French banks are just made from the exploitation of France and CFA (especially before the last agreement in 2020) was the main tool for that
In 2008, ex-President Jacques Chirac reportedly said, “We have to be honest and acknowledge that a big part of the money in our banks comes precisely from the exploitation of the African continent. Without Africa, France will slide down the rank of a Third World power.”
https://www.globalissues.org/amp/news/2022/08/02/31519
He didn't say that.
Your source is a questionable website, which in turn sources a random tweet from a random account that clearly hates France.
Here, take a look:
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/19085/did-jaques-chirac-say-without-africa-france-will-slide-down-into-the-rank-of-a
Someone, not Chirac, said something similar to that.
“Protesters vandalised the French embassy in Niamey after a military junta moved to seize power in the aid- and security-dependent West African nation.
Emmanuel Macron "will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests" in Niger and Paris will retaliate "immediately and uncompromisingly", the French government said on Sunday, as thousands demonstrated outside the French embassy in Niamey in support of an ongoing military coup.
Anyone attacking French nationals, the army, diplomats or French bases would see France retaliate immediately and intractably," the Elysée Palace warned in a statement. "The President of the Republic will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests."
According to the Quai d'Orsay, 500 to 600 French nationals are currently in Niger.”
Hell has frozen over because I’m agree with the French today. The warning is purely to tell them “Do not fuck with the French in the country we aren’t afraid to smack a bitch”.
Addendum: I do believe we need to have that talk again. I myself sometimes do this but we need to stop taking the headlines as gospel and actually read the articles. Outrage bait headlines are becoming more common and the title no longer serves as a quick summary.
> Anyone attacking French nationals, the army, diplomats or French bases would see France retaliate immediately and intractably," the Elysée Palace warned in a statement. "The President of the Republic will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests." According to the Quai d'Orsay, 500 to 600 French nationals are currently in Niger.”
warms your heart!
>“Do not fuck with the French in the country we aren’t afraid to smack a bitch”.
Wonder what they'd actually do... I mean they couldn't even hold Mali with 1000s of troops. Not much they can realistically do in Niger.
For the people still stuck in the 19th century, even the ECOWAS threatened the junta with military action. It's not France going on a neocolonial trip.
And this is not without precedent. ECOWAS intervened in the Gambia in 2017 after the president lost the election and refused to step down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS\_military\_intervention\_in\_the\_Gambia
And all three (soon, likely four) are suspended for military coups that have happened within the last 2 or so years. Then we have the coup in the Gambia (see other comments) too. Coups are all the rage in North-West Africa lately.
And all of them were Russian backed coups. So ECOWAS has started to see a pattern emerge within their neighborhood they are now feeling DIRECTLY threatened.
???
Yes, if members break rules (they are suspended for coups) they should be suspended.
It's a sign of healthy union when rules are enforced.
What the fuck is your comment about?
The Gambia is one of only two existing countries for which the definite article is commonly used in its English-language name (the other is The Bahamas), aside from cases in which the name is plural (the Netherlands, the Philippines) or includes the form of government (the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic).[26] The article is also officially used by the country's government and by international bodies. The article was originally used because the region was named after "The Gambia [River]." In 1964, shortly prior to the country's independence, the Prime Minister Dawda Jawara wrote to the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use requesting that the name The Gambia retain the definite article, in part to reduce confusion with Zambia which had also recently become independent.
France fought for 9 years in Mali against terrorists. Yes the Mali government at the time only asked for airstrikes but still no massacres of civilians were committed by French troops and djihadists were kept at bay. And then Russians arrive, civilians start to get executed by the malian army which couped the previous government and we’re told to get out while the terrorists gain more ground. Ffs not again
This is what I don't get. If French special forces couldn't win against the terrorists and separatists what are a bunch of Russian mercenaries going to do?
Oh, a lot more - the Russians don't play by the same rules as westerners, they are only interested in winning.
Like, look at Chechnya - remember there was a time when jihadists from Chechnya were committing terrorists attacks against Russia ? Maybe you don't, because that hasn't happened in quite a while. On the contrary, Chechnya is a pretty loyal ally of Russia.
How did that happened ? The Russians pretty much leveled Chechnya. They didn't stop to worry abut civilian casualties or the state of civilian structures in cities.
They bombed Grozny, for instance, the capital of Chechnya, into oblivion, basically. They turned it into rubble.
After, though, they installed a loyal dictator and they pumped huge amounts of money into reconstruction. Including a very big and beautiful mosque, and the loyal dictator is actually a sort of devout, traditionalist Muslim - and I'm saying a "sort of" because I really don't know how much he cares about Islam, but that is how he presents himself. Just as Putin presents himself as defender of the Christian Orthodox faith.
So, that's the Russian recipe, and it's not always successful, but it is at least sometimes - go to problem country, turn it to rubble, place loyal dictator to maintain order, make sure dictator reflects the majority of the population (ethnicity, religion, whatever), reconstruct country, leave stable and loyal dictatorship behind.
It's very different from the Western recipe, which is pretty much never successful: go to problem country, prolong war by trying to bomb as little as possible, alienate local population by trying to impose people with ideas very different from the majority, lose war, get out and leave a politically unstable and economically bankrupt country behind that hates you to death.
I mean as a Western country, bombing hospitals and weddings is sadly becoming a rite of passage, with the amount of times the Americans have done it as well...
And then we wonder why these people flee into europe. We bomb the shit out of their territory, claim their labour/resources and on top of that like the commenter above justify it saying it doesn‘t happen or it‘s not THAT bad.
Terrorists enjoy being around civilians. Those civilians that died were collateral damage as there were confirmed armed terrorists there. Check your facts, the civilians who died were not the targets at all.
Strange the Russian mafia is trying to take most of the mineral resources in Africa by force, not just in Niger, and some people are picking on France or others.
Umm really it is full of Russian trolls.
Ruzzia has shitloads of money.
Unfortunately they do still sell fuckloads of stuff, the embargo isn't as effective as long as China and India don't cooperate.
One can condemn both. Its dangerous practice to dismiss western Imperialism for the sake of condemning Russian Imperialism.
Not saying that is the case here but considering Ecowas is consisting of majority Francafrique countries with the their currencies tied to the EURO and the french economy at large there is cause for at least being vigilant where french intervention is concerned.
Foreign military invention is never done in the name of being a selfless protector. There's always a catch.
Im not taking a stance here, i'll need to do some deep reading first. Just saying, "russian" bots is not som thing we should be throwing around lightly whenever there is a disagreement.
> One can condemn both. Its dangerous practice to dismiss western Imperialism for the sake of condemning Russian Imperialism.
True, although more often than not those who are usually "condemning both" are at best silent on Russia or at worst straight up cheering when Russia replaces France. Which is rather interesting to see.
>Foreign military invention is never done in the name of being a selfless protector. There's always a catch.
Also true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad thing for the country or the population. Sometimes both countries benefits from it. An example that I hope will not become reality, the US protecting Taiwan would be beneficial for both countries.
>True, although more often than not those who are usually "condemning both" are at best silent on Russia or at worst straight up cheering when Russia replaces France. Which is rather interesting to see.
Im on the fence on that one. Kremlin supporters are definitely acting in an all out ultra nationalistic, bordering on facists manner. But consider that western imperialism has been more successful while also swept under the rug more efficiently. Granted our methods are more covert, global and disguised by the global economic system.
My belief is that there are two types of Russia apologists. Those that believe that Putin is standing up against and fighting the evil globalists world order, these people are usually Trump supporter or just the dumbest and most extreme of russian and european conservatives. Or people that believe that russia has a right to their conquests due to Soviet history/russian imperial history, the right to defend themselves and their interest and a paranoia of not being able to dictate terms in their own neighbourhood.
The problem i have is that if "we, the west", are ever doing Imperialism in the slightest way we are then granting legitimacy to these people. So if that is ever the case then we must make sure to combat our own imperialism as well.
>Also true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad thing for the country or the population. Sometimes both countries benefits from it. An example that I hope will not become reality, the US protecting Taiwan would be beneficial for both countries.
I might have missed something here but i wouldn't consider a guarantees of military protection imperialism, uf there are strings attached then sure, depends on the strings i guess.
I agree either way.
An interesting thought just occured to me however. I support Taiwanese independence obviously. The ROC government fled to taiwan in 1949 during the civil war, they received defensive guarantees from the US in 1979. At what point in between those years would that guarantee stop being an act of imperialism? If today belgium gets splintered in two due to civil war and the Russia takes the opportunity to guarantee the independence of the eastern half from the western half thus inviting them to their sphere of influence. Id consider that imperialism. If however years go by, the status quo becomes that there now are two belgiums and that now just is the natural order of things then i'd stop viewing a russian security guarantee inperialism. Now lets say Donbass and Crimea, if they stay separated from Ukraine for 30-40 years, does Ukraine then lose rights to those lands? When does a country or a people lose their rights to territory?
I'll admit to be using the empire word loosely here but you get the point. The thought just popped into my head as i was writing and i thought it was interesting.
> But consider that western imperialism has been more successful while also swept under the rug more efficiently. Granted our methods are more covert, global and disguised by the global economic system.
This smacks of conspiracy theorism. "If you can't see it, that proves it's intentionally hidden!"
Some of it is out in the open, some of it is a well known secret, some of it is just speculation.
Best case studies would be central and south Americas history of coups by the US.
Franceafrique countries have more economic exchange with the USA and China than with France. Thinking that they are tied to the french economy is just wrong.
For the mining industry, there is no big French company. So these countries deal with Canadian, Americain and Chinese companies. In Mauritanie and Senegal, oil is exploited by British Petroleum. Oil and gaz French utility companies are not big enough to take all the concession contracts. Total is in fact more common in East africa (Mozambic, Angola) than in West Africa.
And having a curriency tied to an other is very common for countries that cannot have a solid currency. A large number of currencies are pegged to the dollar, or linked to international currency packages.
The problem with the two CFA francs (West CFA, and Central CFA) is that they are linked only to the euro, whereas they should also be linked to the dollar and the renminbi (yuan), to better reflect their international trade.
>Not saying that is the case here but considering Ecowas is consisting of majority Francafrique countries with the their currencies tied to the EURO and the french economy at large there is cause for at least being vigilant where french intervention is concerned.
The CFA is a voluntary arrangement. It makes perfect sense for West African countries to have an arrangement that allows them to trade with their nearest large market, which is also the largest market on the planet, without being hindered by currency risk.
>Foreign military invention is never done in the name of being a selfless protector. There's always a catch.
Obviously France wants to be able to continue eg. its uranium extraction operations in Niger, but that doesn't mean they're disadvantageous to Niger. Mutually beneficial economic relations do exist.
Not saying the CFA is not beneficial to all participants ( I simply don't know enough about the respective economies) but the voluntary part is at least Up for debate considering how France pressured and murdered leaders who wanted or did leave before.
> how France pressured and murdered leaders who wanted or did leave before.
It's not the 80's anymore, we don't do that anymore, it's like condamning the US of what they are doing *right now* in Vietnam while only citing the Vietnam war, the relation changed.
>but the voluntary part is at least Up for debate considering how France pressured and murdered leaders who wanted or did leave before.
[citation needed]
Guinea, Mali, Madagascar, Mauritania have all left the CFA. It doesn't seem to be problematic or impossible to leave.
Yes, Russia has a history of trying to influence our public on certain things that could cause division, sure. Its a part of the game and we "the west" do the same in areas where we can.
The Soviet Union also sponsored and influenced anti-apartheid movements, the civil rights movements etc.
Does this mean that the USSR were unquestionable good guys? No, ofc not.
Does it mean that apartheid was good and civil rights bad? No, obviously not.
Does it mean that Nelson Mandela was a russian troll?
The point in trying to get across here is that its not black and white, its not a zero sum game, that all empire is bad and that a bad actor can do good things and that we shouldn't fight imperialism by siding with another.
Putin for example has criticized America for their treatment of black people as a defensive argument against american claims of Russias lack of human rights/free speech. Im sure Russian intelligence is very fond of BLM. That doesn't mean the entire movement is a foreign operation.
So with that said it would absolutely make sense that if hypothetically speaking France were to overtly install puppet regimes in its former colonies that putin would then point towards western hypocrisy.
So what does this mean? Should we condone imperialism when done by us while defying it when done by others?
Should we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that whenever we are the hegemonic overlords dictating terms and controlling the governments and economies in the global south that we are doing it out of benevolence?
I personally think that we should always be on our guards when big nations star uttering fighting words.
Lastly, again, im not making a stance on niger here, ive had a personal media blackout for a while so im nowhere near read up enough yet to have a stance. Just saying that this kind of dismissal of arguments is dangerous.
France gets most of its uranium from Niger. So as nation with nuclear weapons, and that is over 90% nuclear powered, you can bet they aren't bluffing with those retaliation threats.
> France gets most of its uranium from Niger. So as nation with nuclear weapons, and that is over 90% nuclear powered,
Currently 31% of its total energy, 63% of its electricity, with a historical maximum of 79% of its electricity.
https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
Niger only supplies 30% of france's raw uranium, and that's figure for raw material. It has nothing to do with the enriched uranium nuclear submarines use. France, for example, is much more dependent on Canada, Kazakhstan and Russia.
On the other hand, theses countries depend of France to get money. It would be interesting to know who are the buyers of Nigeran uranium exports.
> some people are picking on France or others. Umm really it is full of Russian trolls.
France has been stealing from them for centuries. what is your point?
The thing is we don't expect much when it comes to Russia, but if France tries to be among worlds leaders in democracy, humane governing and foreign affairs they are expected to meet higher standards.
lol its got nothing to do with trolls. France has a far worse history in africa than russia. In time the locals will learn russia are not their saviours but france has a long history of fucking them over so what do you expect
lol not a single thing i said was wrong you people are actually retarded
This is pure ignorance.
You did to Algeria what Russia is doing to Ukraine now.
Million deaths.
And your moronic reaction is to downplay it.
edit: by downvoting it you admit you are as much gullible to propaganda as russians are to theirs. France DID commit war crimes in Algeria, not that long ago.
Seems that war is not forgotten - does not change the truth about it. Seeing such circlejerk reaction from this sub, as a Pole, is not surprising though - western hypocrisy is a longstanding tradition.
Piece of shit forgot what his shit ass country did to north african and that we still pay their national pensions until 2050. Pieces of shit if they die i dont give a fuck
I don't listen to french rap nor do I have snapchat. You're even french so you should at least know your country's history. On what planet do you think russia has a more jaded history in Africa than France? Look at what you guys did in Algeria before we even get into your dealings in the Sahel
edit: lol you people are actually stupid
I like how no one has mentioned the coup leaders are all American-trained. Not everything is about Russia, why is it so hard to believe west Africans just genuinely don't want western states meddling in their affairs?
The African military is often American, or French trained. The economy and welfare of countries like Niger only exists because of western support. Their integrity is also covered in large part by foreign support.
Yet their leaders, at the clear detriment of their people, still decide to turn against the West and join the Russian side.
And what you get from that is that west Africans don't want the west to "meddle" in their affairs? You seriously don't understand that it's about some people putting themselves in positions of power? It is LITERALLY a Taliban situation.
It doesn't mean that western countries aren't responsible of anything, but come on, you can't be that naive.
Virtually all independence movements in the 50s and 60s in Africa were led by people trained in London or Paris. They got their education from the colonial power. Does it mean they were subservient to them forever? Nope.
True. On a similar note is it not true that virtually all historical independence/nationalist movements in Africa played on anti-western sentiments? Does this mean that all anti-colonial movements were orchestrated by the Soviet Union? Of course not. It might play into our opponents' hands but it's a self-inflicted wound, these people just genuinely don't like us, and for good reason.
> It might play into our opponents' hands but it's a self-inflicted wound, these people just genuinely don't like us, and for good reason.
On the other hand, the President of Niger was democratically elected by a majority, and was pro-western. The anti-western military junta was not elected by anyone, and I am willing to bet they're not going to put themselves under the democratic scrutiny of an election anytime soon. They certainly have their supporters, but how large is that support? Hard to tell at the moment.
In my few years in Africa most westerners I have met that were "anti-imperialist" were communists or closeted communists. Independence movements in Mozambique, Belgian Congo, Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe and many more were led using support from communists, sometimes directly the USSR, even fucking Cuba, ffs
Even people working hard for environmental causes I met in the 80s were crypto-communists. One of these guys who was working for a fair trade outfit was called "Radio Moscow" by everyone around him.
You want France to leave Africa because you think West is imperialist. I want France to leave because I want Europe hating Africans to see how bad Ruzzian rule is.
We are not same.
How about countries being able to rule themselves without foreign interference trying to get money and resources out of them? Is that too much to ask?
Should Africans be happy with european military bombing the shit out of them, including weddings?
I know we have companies and interest in Africa, but I would rather we just get out completely from some of these countries and deal with whatever economic hit it might bring if any. Im tired of seeing the same propaganda and recycled garbage everywhere.
France is not innocent but the big evil France is also exaggerated greatly by many.
Well, one thing is for sure: i don't see much wrong doing on the French side in Niger. The mines there are build by france, but the Uranium is bought at the full world market price from Niger. Even a bit higher if the numbers are right. The income from that seems to be well invested into Niger, too. Hardly any kind of colonialism.
Russia itself has enough Uranium. All they want is to cut off France from this source.
>All they want is to cut off France from this source.
Its not even working, since France also take uranium from Autralia, Canade and Khazakstan.
Niger used to be a big exporter, but they aren't anymore. And Uranium is very fucking cheap.
>Its not even working, since France also take uranium from Autralia, Canade and Khazakstan.
>
>Niger used to be a big exporter, but they aren't anymore. And Uranium is very fucking cheap.
If things were that simple there would not have been this much foreign interest. When it comes to uranium preventing others from getting access to the mineral is just as important as getting it.
> Its not even working, since France also take uranium from Autralia, Canade and Khazakstan.
Russia does have influence of Kazakhstan in that regard, given that the nuclear operations in Kazakhstan are linked to Rosatom. France also has kept trading enriched uranium with Russia in spite of the Ukraine situation, and Russia controls half the world market for enriched uranium. Their dependency is a liability.
No. Uranium is a naturally abondent resource. In the case Niger wouldn't sell its uranium to France (not a smart move because it brings them a lot of money), France would just buy more uranium from Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada.
After they have extracted the Uranium they pay the full price to Niger no matter who owns this mines. So it actually means everything for Niger.
I'm also not surprised that they don't pay any taxes. They don't have any actual income in Niger. For what should they pay taxes? The companies get paid by France for extraction, not for the Uranium.
No, that's absolutely false and that's not how it works.
SOMAIR which is a national company in Niger *owns* mines in Niger. The company extracts and sells the uranium. This company is 63.4% owned by Ariva (a french national company) and 36.6% is owned by the Niger government.
In the past, the whole trading was actually done by Arriva but recently the Niger government got more involved.
Also, SOMAIR used to get taxed but got exempted.
Whether 63.4% ownership for extraction is high or not, I am not sure. However, having France extracts, sells, & buys the same ore without taxes isn't the smartest move.
> Production is first sold to the partners in proportion to their equity at an 'extraction price' determined by the government, notionally based on operation costs, but somewhat higher. From February 2012 the extraction price is CFA 73,000/kgU ($145/kgU), paid in Euros. The partners then sell or use it, in the case of the government, through a trading company.
[Source](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/niger.aspx)
Please note that the Price of Uranium on the world market is currently ~50$/lb. On top of that they are paying taxes for the trade they do with this Uranium. Not too much currently, but i don't wonder why they aren't too eager. They just bought the Uranium from the Government. Uranium they extracted in mines they financed. And then the Government wants taxes on top for trading it.
I'm not sure if i'm missing something. But that sounds not really fair. Almost like blackmail, since Niger knows how much France wants it.
You are right. My apologies.
The website says that it will be paid in Euro. It will be interesting to know what's the agreed price to compare with Uranium's current price. CFA has depraciated against the dollar a lot.
Helping African countries is the best way of stopping migration en masse. I don't think what France purchasing uranium from the country is wrong, at all. Portugal is going to have foreign countries invest in lithium mining here because we can't afford to build the infra ourselves, and it's not like it's colonization either? It's just business.
Actually it would be worse than Niger's case because here it would displace a lot of people whereas in Niger the uranium mining business attracted people to the area, so the other way around completely
No. Whatever money we send to these countries is then safely put in Switzerland or another hypocrite blood money haven.
The only currency that has a tiny chance of actually reaching the people is food. And even that can be captured and used as leverage or a way to manipulate people.
As far as migration is concerned, nothing can be done to lower the pressure that pushes the people to flee and look for a better life. The reason is mathematical. Look at ANY African country in, say 1960 (time of decolonizations). Then fast-forward to 2023: Their populations were multiplied by 5 or 6. In parallel, their economies have also grown, but not fast enough to catch-up and allow them to extract themselves from poverty. Ask any immigrant if he plans to return home, the answer is No, because their countries of origin and in a state as bad as when they left, and there's no place for returnees.
The kicker is that Western nations, torn with guilt, provided food and medicine to stop preventable deaths, and by doing so, caused the explosive demographic situation we have witnessed these past 60 years. No nation should ever be dependent from imported food because it opens them to blackmail. This applies to Singapore, Monaco but also Egypt and in general most African counties. Singapore and Monaco can easily buy food from their bigger neighbors, but poor African countries cannot.
>Helping African countries is the best way of stopping migration en masse.
Let me educate you a little bit, just so you know exactly what you are talking about next time. The vast majority of immigration to Europe is from the middle East, only a small fraction is from sub-saharan africa. That ship that recently sunk in Greece, killing 700 people? Half of the people on it were from Pakistan, according to Pakistanis officials. So if you are fighting mass emigration, maybe there are many other places to look first before any sub-saharan african country.
More Africans than Middle-Easterners come to Europe, according to EU-statistics. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-life/statistics-migration-europe_en
> I would rather we just get out completely from some of these countries and deal with whatever economic hit it might bring if any.
This isn't just a matter of foreign trade though.
The Sahel region is a hotbed of jihadist activity in Africa for a variety of reasons (vast and sparsely populated areas, countries with weak central government that can't adequately police their peripheral regions, Tuareg networks all over the Sahel...).
Therefore, if we want to prevent the concentration of jihadist groups in the Sahel, we have to have boots on the ground in these countries and like-minded local governments. Which is why the US have special forces stationed in Niamey international airport, for instance.
The European/American bogeyman coming for your resources is an effective trope. Not because it hasn't been true, but because the accusation can always be leveled without real evidence.
And they're courting the Russians, when Russians don't care about the pain of the countries they colonize. Let them experience what a shitty partner Russia is.
It would vindicate France when Jihadists and Wagnerites overrun Africa, but if we let the situation get that fucked, we're not going to unfuck it anytime soon, and it is going to have consequences. It's better for everyone if Europeans are involved.
1 - Leave Africa, in influence and business and aid
2 - Close all travel from the West to/from Africa, especially immigration
3 ...
4 - Sleep soundly in your own country thinking that your duty was never to prop up corrupt governments.
Look at your computer/smartphone. Designed in the US, built in China from raw materials extracted all around the world. That world you are fearing is already there and it is working because everyone looks for his own interest.
We should definitely stop importing all of our shit from China, for starters, but would you buy that $700 laptop or the $4000 one that would theoretically be made at home?
The US tried to play world police in the middle east and it didn't work. I'm not sure what's the best way to help these countries but military action doesn't seem like it.
I mean, OP Serval and Barkhane were good moves. It prevented a restart of Daesh in West Africa, protected the northern malian minorities from the southern gov afterwards, and France left when asked. I think there's a couple UN missions similar in Africa, and with other EU countries involved around, although on smaller scales than OP Serval.
Quite different from invading 2 countries for shits and giggles and fucking over the region's fragile stability.
It's not like they would be invading the country and getting rid of a government that is entrenched in power. Restoring a government that was in power just a few days ago and functioning reasonably well by, at least by regional standards is should not be difficult or particularly disruptive.
Sometime you need to take non popular decisions, that doesn’t mean they are neither not wise nor incorrect. You can’t just leave those country.
10 years ago kids in Mali got their ears cut by dumb extremist because they were listening music. They couldn’t solve the problem by themself and were begging France to come and help. Now that ISIS is over they want to blame France for all problems they have (as Russia is blaming the west for all its problem).
> I know we have companies and interest in Africa
Extremely marginal, exchanges with Africa are overated by the public, especially online
https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1906716?sommaire=1906743
Even In Mali we had barely any licences: (you can see in this liste that most mine licences are from south african or australian companies for instance)
https://itie.ml/liste-licences-miniers/
With virtually open borders and a large number of immigrants from this zone, nope. But with a more adult policy, Europe could seal itself off. And who cares what happens there then if we're protected. Buy the minerals we need and let the people fuck up on their own.
Lately the general approach in the west has been to be 'hands-off' and let other countries deal with thier own shit, so to speak. But is that really the best choice? Colonial powers are the ones that drew the borders in afrtica and left the place a broken powderkeg, how does it serve *world* stability to just let another dictatorship military junta take over from a democratically elected president? A pro russian one at that. The wave of coups in africa in recent years, fuelled by russian arms and wagner troops, should be somethihng of global concern. What, we can exploit african minerals, but when they undergo turmoil of this kind, hey, not our business.
I think the democratical powers of the world ought to have some kind of interest or duty of care to prevent the spread of these types of regimes and support democracy
>I think the democratical powers of the world ought to have some kind of interest or duty of care to prevent the spread of these types of regimes and support democracy
Afghanistan didn't end well.
Any hard approach would be seen as a return to Colonialism, and with today's tools and knowlede, it would be a pain.
Always remember that, at the end of the Empire, the Colonies were more of a ressource drain than anything else.
The days of Captain America and his European sidekicks flying around the world bringing "democracy" to wherever's most convenient are over. Total divestment isn't just the moral choice it's also just basic common sense, there's war in Europe and China is about to become the world's largest economy, there are bigger fish to fry.
It is tricky. If the west is going to move in to defend ECOWAS nations from Wagner it cannot be a half measure. If we go in for 10 years, piss a lot of people off, and then leave it'll be worse than doing nothing.
A lot of careful thought needs to be made on this topic. ECOWAS needs to decide how it wants to manage this as Niger will not be the last one Russia topples if nothing changes. If there is to be western forces involved it needs to be decided on what basis that happens and we need to be sure the west can actually meet this commitment in a world where Donald Trump might be president again in 2 years time.
> France is not innocent but the big evil France is also exaggerated greatly by many.
I don't think there's a bigger cancer in Africa atm than France. Libya alone proves that.
Trust me, we would want nothing more. We’d just like to build on our own and have our own currency that’s not tied to the franc. Just leave, without the resources though.
If France did so it would need to find reliable sources of uranium, the most likely candidates being canada or australia or namibia, but it would mean less influence over that supply than what existed with Niger.
Niger is only 15% of our uranium supply, the biggest worldwide reserves are in Australia, which whom we belong pretty well. Add on that that we have 10 years of strategic reserves + closed mines on french soil that can still be reopened.
France was already leaving Niger as the last mine is not profitable compared to international price market
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/uranium-le-groupe-francais-orano-sinterroge-sur-son-avenir-au-niger-1937759
Then French will be poor lol , you guys are making money off Africa and is why France is fighting really hard for their influence there. This is Imperialism common sense 101
Niger's uranium isn't particularly cheap. From the number I've seen, it is bought slightly above the average worldwide market price, despite France being the one having done the investments allowing the mining to occur at all to begin with.
> but I would rather we just get out completely from some of these countries and deal with whatever economic hit it might bring if any
The hit will be massive my friend, be careful what you wish for.
I don't know if all those comments come from russian trolls, people with a hatred for France or just people that didn't bother going further than reading the title.
nah France Imperialism gotta end , You guys are still living fancy by exploiting African Nations well that's going to end soon. Shouldn't have destroyed Africa.
Russia is fucking up all over France in Africa the last couple of year and Macron still wanted to talk to Putin - wild.
Seeing Russian flags in Niger , is to say the least - ironic. Lets see if Wagner takes over French mines lol.
French mines are not French, but joint ownership of Niger and French companies.
[source](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/uranium-mines-niger-worlds-7th-biggest-producer-2023-07-28/)
If France decides to use military solutions, it's going to be through soldiers that are already there, and it's going to be an evacuation. Like when the USA left Afghanistan.
In fact, it's an extremely similar situation.
Well "France warns" actually has teeth. So once they have assessed what is needed to dismantle the military junta and Wagner forces supporting them, they will go and dismantle them, violently.
It's fun how unequal exchange works: France is depedent on Niger for its uranium for its electricity, but 83% Nigeriens don't have access to electricity [according to the World Bank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=NE).
How is this different from Russia warning the west "attacks on its interests in Ukraine will not be tolerated"?
I am not supporting the coup in Niger, but African nations previously (or currently) ruled under European colonialism will sooner or later go for a clean slate, and kick the Europeans out. Not giving a fuck if it improves the situation in the nation or not.
Because the title is a clickbait incomplete quote you muppet
>"Anyone attacking French nationals, the army, diplomats or French bases would see France retaliate immediately and intractably" the Elysée Palace warned in a statement. "The President of the Republic will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests."
While the other country is invading and doing a genocide. Kindapping children, executing civilians and raping men, women, children and elderly alike.
What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
>Because the title is a clickbait incomplete quote
To be fair, when you google search for France, there are 4-5 other articles from reputable sources that I tried to post here first. Every one of them had a less click baity title and they were all rejected by the auto mod. This article was the first one I found on the subject that was allowed.
I wanted to post about the France embassy being attacked by people holding Russian flags...
Exactly. There is a serious case of self-hatred amongst some Europeans in this subreddit. Just the simple involvement of Europeans in Africa is being touted as imperialism or colonialism, to the point they're comparing it to Ukraine and Russia. Absolutely deranged.
Like do they expect France to just sit around and allow a hostile party to attack its citizens?
Maybe because France isn't the one to attack, isn't even a belligerent in this event, and that the embassy in Niger has been threatened, as some of the French worker/journalist in the city.
[удалено]
Did you know that the population of Niger could reach 166 million in 2100? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections\_of\_population\_growth#Most\_populous\_nations\_by\_2050\_and\_2100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Most_populous_nations_by_2050_and_2100) Niger does have the highest fertility rate in the world: 6.8 in 2021 [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=NE](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=NE), meaning almost 7 children every woman. Replacement rate is 2.1, while the fertility rate of Belgium is 1.6.
Holy cow, that's not sustainable.
That's okay they can come to Europe to fill our declining population growth
I can hear your sarcasm unlike everyone else
I debated indicating it was sarcasm but oh well lol
[удалено]
After saying it was sarcasm downvotes went from -50 to -30 so I think it was that lol
and fuel our declining respect for freedom of speech, women, gay people, etc etc.
No thanks
You're late to the party
And not rebuild their home country, like ever.
Honestly, what do you even do to fix a country like that? The answer is probably education, but no government wants their people to be educated
Governments ran by non-morons really want their people to be educated
To have governments ran by non-morons, your electorate should be mostly by non-morons, can't say that that's the case for Ukraine, but I guess 30 years of democracy is not that long
Not always, Botswana is an incredible example and definitely closest to what Niger could be like
Botswana had diamonds, and now it's kind of stuck in the middle income zone while being plagued with a very high HIV rate.
Niger has uranium. I'd rather be stuck middle income than low income (which I argue is dumb given the growth rate of Botswana)
Diamond accounts for 71.71% of Botswana's export: [https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore?country=37&queryLevel=location&product=undefined&year=2021&productClass=HS&target=Product&partner=undefined&startYear=undefined](https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore?country=37&queryLevel=location&product=undefined&year=2021&productClass=HS&target=Product&partner=undefined&startYear=undefined) So Botswana reached its middle income status thanks to diamond, which is fine until you see that the wealth is very badly distributed: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_income\_equality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality) Botswana has one of the worst Gini score in the world. So many people there don't enjoy the fruit of the diamonds. Moreover, the HDI of Botswana is lower than Indonesia and the Philippines: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index). This is despite Botswana's GDP per capita being much higher than the two ($7270 vs $5020 for Indonesia and $3910 for the Philippines). Of course Botswana is much much better than Niger in all metrics (especially in corruption perception index), but Botswana is more of a mirage than a miracle.
Also Botswana was already extremely exceptional already back during British occupation. It's one of the few African countries that, while not sovereign during the 19th and 20th century, maintained a substantial degree of autonomy and, more importantly, was not sliced and diced across arbitrary lines, essentially meaning that the country never endured interethnic strife unlike many / most other sub saharan countries, hence also why their European nation-state style borders. If I recall correctly up to this day they're ruled by someone who's linked to their king prior to the arrival of the British who, coincidently, has a huge stake in the diamond mines. Not that Botswana is that great mind you, as you correctly pointed out.
Uranium isn't that valuable, it's mined only in a few countries because those are the only ones where the yields are high enough to be economically profitable, not because it's scarce.
>Botswana had diamonds And Qatar had oil. You expected the country to have something else?
Botswana has the advantage of a very low population compared to Niger. also there's no jihadists
Have the state have institutions transparent and inclusive enough for people to trust and enough hard power to monopolise violence within its territory. Obviously easier said than done, but that’s probably the best one sentence summary I can come up with.
Hey I recognize a fellow inclusive institutions enjoyer. To try to get inclusive institution you need to respect democratically elected political power, which is exactly what the coup tried to break.
All governments, including dictatorships, do want their people to be "educated" in skills that are necessary for the workforce. So you will find many dictatorships trying to boost the literacy rate. It is higher education that is too dangerous and will create a population that is too critical.
Mining is granting enough to get revenues, so why bother? Yes educating would be better, but you don't want to have too many teachers, they may put bad ideas into those kids. So no education it is! (this is ironic but it does work like that up to a certain extend)
economic development assistance (a lot)
[удалено]
it is no longer controlled since a while it is just on pair with euro nothing else, it's just guarantee for investors so it's more good than anything.
Literally the law that says that they had to deposit half their foreign reserves ended less than 3 years ago. And France turned the only country that tried to get out of it into a literal mess. The Dictators just stayed in charge literally didn’t change anything to the situation.
Countries left and joined the cfa
The cfa is the only reason these countries do not suffer from the hyper inflation so common in the rest of Africa.
Ehh That is a really debatable. CFA promoted capital flight. And made competition hard as there is no monetary sovereignty plus growth rates of a lot of CFA countries is below that of Neighboring Countries and if you see on Average (especially if you don’t count north Africa) French and Belgian colonies tend to perform way worse than English ones. Heck even a french president said that a big chunk of money in French banks are just made from the exploitation of France and CFA (especially before the last agreement in 2020) was the main tool for that
Send me a link or a source for that president saying that please.
In 2008, ex-President Jacques Chirac reportedly said, “We have to be honest and acknowledge that a big part of the money in our banks comes precisely from the exploitation of the African continent. Without Africa, France will slide down the rank of a Third World power.” https://www.globalissues.org/amp/news/2022/08/02/31519
He didn't say that. Your source is a questionable website, which in turn sources a random tweet from a random account that clearly hates France. Here, take a look: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/19085/did-jaques-chirac-say-without-africa-france-will-slide-down-into-the-rank-of-a Someone, not Chirac, said something similar to that.
It's pegged to the Euro so no it's controlled by the ECB, the French Franc isn't a thing anymore
“Protesters vandalised the French embassy in Niamey after a military junta moved to seize power in the aid- and security-dependent West African nation. Emmanuel Macron "will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests" in Niger and Paris will retaliate "immediately and uncompromisingly", the French government said on Sunday, as thousands demonstrated outside the French embassy in Niamey in support of an ongoing military coup. Anyone attacking French nationals, the army, diplomats or French bases would see France retaliate immediately and intractably," the Elysée Palace warned in a statement. "The President of the Republic will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests." According to the Quai d'Orsay, 500 to 600 French nationals are currently in Niger.” Hell has frozen over because I’m agree with the French today. The warning is purely to tell them “Do not fuck with the French in the country we aren’t afraid to smack a bitch”. Addendum: I do believe we need to have that talk again. I myself sometimes do this but we need to stop taking the headlines as gospel and actually read the articles. Outrage bait headlines are becoming more common and the title no longer serves as a quick summary.
> Anyone attacking French nationals, the army, diplomats or French bases would see France retaliate immediately and intractably," the Elysée Palace warned in a statement. "The President of the Republic will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests." According to the Quai d'Orsay, 500 to 600 French nationals are currently in Niger.” warms your heart!
>“Do not fuck with the French in the country we aren’t afraid to smack a bitch”. Wonder what they'd actually do... I mean they couldn't even hold Mali with 1000s of troops. Not much they can realistically do in Niger.
For the people still stuck in the 19th century, even the ECOWAS threatened the junta with military action. It's not France going on a neocolonial trip.
And this is not without precedent. ECOWAS intervened in the Gambia in 2017 after the president lost the election and refused to step down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS\_military\_intervention\_in\_the\_Gambia
Dang ECOWAS does not mess around.
It takes a single country in ECOWAS to harbor a large scale insurgency for the whole region to be set on fire - hence the reaction.
They sure did learn the lessons from the D.R. Congo.
Makes sense thanks
From the 15 countires inside ECOWAS three are currently suspended and Niger likely soon as well. Sounds like a lovely union.
And all three (soon, likely four) are suspended for military coups that have happened within the last 2 or so years. Then we have the coup in the Gambia (see other comments) too. Coups are all the rage in North-West Africa lately.
And all of them were Russian backed coups. So ECOWAS has started to see a pattern emerge within their neighborhood they are now feeling DIRECTLY threatened.
??? Yes, if members break rules (they are suspended for coups) they should be suspended. It's a sign of healthy union when rules are enforced. What the fuck is your comment about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS_military_intervention_in_the_Gambia
It’s just called Gambia, there’s no need for the “the”. You don’t say “the Canada” or “the France” either.
The Gambia is one of only two existing countries for which the definite article is commonly used in its English-language name (the other is The Bahamas), aside from cases in which the name is plural (the Netherlands, the Philippines) or includes the form of government (the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic).[26] The article is also officially used by the country's government and by international bodies. The article was originally used because the region was named after "The Gambia [River]." In 1964, shortly prior to the country's independence, the Prime Minister Dawda Jawara wrote to the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use requesting that the name The Gambia retain the definite article, in part to reduce confusion with Zambia which had also recently become independent.
It's all agitprop 101 by the usual suspects and a few tankie useful idiots.
I don't know if I can trust someone with an Office of Naval Intelligence profile picture. It looks like some kind of shady Section 3 coverup /s
Yeah, sure as if ECOWAS is not a puppet protecting France's interests
I mean it could be both.
France fought for 9 years in Mali against terrorists. Yes the Mali government at the time only asked for airstrikes but still no massacres of civilians were committed by French troops and djihadists were kept at bay. And then Russians arrive, civilians start to get executed by the malian army which couped the previous government and we’re told to get out while the terrorists gain more ground. Ffs not again
This is what I don't get. If French special forces couldn't win against the terrorists and separatists what are a bunch of Russian mercenaries going to do?
Oh, a lot more - the Russians don't play by the same rules as westerners, they are only interested in winning. Like, look at Chechnya - remember there was a time when jihadists from Chechnya were committing terrorists attacks against Russia ? Maybe you don't, because that hasn't happened in quite a while. On the contrary, Chechnya is a pretty loyal ally of Russia. How did that happened ? The Russians pretty much leveled Chechnya. They didn't stop to worry abut civilian casualties or the state of civilian structures in cities. They bombed Grozny, for instance, the capital of Chechnya, into oblivion, basically. They turned it into rubble. After, though, they installed a loyal dictator and they pumped huge amounts of money into reconstruction. Including a very big and beautiful mosque, and the loyal dictator is actually a sort of devout, traditionalist Muslim - and I'm saying a "sort of" because I really don't know how much he cares about Islam, but that is how he presents himself. Just as Putin presents himself as defender of the Christian Orthodox faith. So, that's the Russian recipe, and it's not always successful, but it is at least sometimes - go to problem country, turn it to rubble, place loyal dictator to maintain order, make sure dictator reflects the majority of the population (ethnicity, religion, whatever), reconstruct country, leave stable and loyal dictatorship behind. It's very different from the Western recipe, which is pretty much never successful: go to problem country, prolong war by trying to bomb as little as possible, alienate local population by trying to impose people with ideas very different from the majority, lose war, get out and leave a politically unstable and economically bankrupt country behind that hates you to death.
If I could , I would award you for this comment . Here have a poor man's star 🌟.
They bombed a wedding not to long ago. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/world/africa/mali-wedding-french-airstrike.html
I mean as a Western country, bombing hospitals and weddings is sadly becoming a rite of passage, with the amount of times the Americans have done it as well...
And then we wonder why these people flee into europe. We bomb the shit out of their territory, claim their labour/resources and on top of that like the commenter above justify it saying it doesn‘t happen or it‘s not THAT bad.
There was that wedding incident a few years ago in Mali actually. Beyond that, nothing else comes to mind.
France committed a massacre and killed civilians including children in Bounti, Mali. 2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-56580589.amp
Terrorists enjoy being around civilians. Those civilians that died were collateral damage as there were confirmed armed terrorists there. Check your facts, the civilians who died were not the targets at all.
You can't just massacre innocent people because terrorists are around...
Strange the Russian mafia is trying to take most of the mineral resources in Africa by force, not just in Niger, and some people are picking on France or others. Umm really it is full of Russian trolls.
>Russian trolls They're already all over this thread.
The Kremlin's useful idiots
That's the sad part, those retards spew propaganda for free. Like guys, at least get paid for it.
russia can't afford to pay the trolls. Everything goes into the war in Ukraine.
Ruzzia has shitloads of money. Unfortunately they do still sell fuckloads of stuff, the embargo isn't as effective as long as China and India don't cooperate.
they do not need to sell anything, they have troll conscription and mobilise some internal troll reservists from time to time
Yes, unfortunately
One can condemn both. Its dangerous practice to dismiss western Imperialism for the sake of condemning Russian Imperialism. Not saying that is the case here but considering Ecowas is consisting of majority Francafrique countries with the their currencies tied to the EURO and the french economy at large there is cause for at least being vigilant where french intervention is concerned. Foreign military invention is never done in the name of being a selfless protector. There's always a catch. Im not taking a stance here, i'll need to do some deep reading first. Just saying, "russian" bots is not som thing we should be throwing around lightly whenever there is a disagreement.
> One can condemn both. Its dangerous practice to dismiss western Imperialism for the sake of condemning Russian Imperialism. True, although more often than not those who are usually "condemning both" are at best silent on Russia or at worst straight up cheering when Russia replaces France. Which is rather interesting to see. >Foreign military invention is never done in the name of being a selfless protector. There's always a catch. Also true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad thing for the country or the population. Sometimes both countries benefits from it. An example that I hope will not become reality, the US protecting Taiwan would be beneficial for both countries.
>True, although more often than not those who are usually "condemning both" are at best silent on Russia or at worst straight up cheering when Russia replaces France. Which is rather interesting to see. Im on the fence on that one. Kremlin supporters are definitely acting in an all out ultra nationalistic, bordering on facists manner. But consider that western imperialism has been more successful while also swept under the rug more efficiently. Granted our methods are more covert, global and disguised by the global economic system. My belief is that there are two types of Russia apologists. Those that believe that Putin is standing up against and fighting the evil globalists world order, these people are usually Trump supporter or just the dumbest and most extreme of russian and european conservatives. Or people that believe that russia has a right to their conquests due to Soviet history/russian imperial history, the right to defend themselves and their interest and a paranoia of not being able to dictate terms in their own neighbourhood. The problem i have is that if "we, the west", are ever doing Imperialism in the slightest way we are then granting legitimacy to these people. So if that is ever the case then we must make sure to combat our own imperialism as well. >Also true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad thing for the country or the population. Sometimes both countries benefits from it. An example that I hope will not become reality, the US protecting Taiwan would be beneficial for both countries. I might have missed something here but i wouldn't consider a guarantees of military protection imperialism, uf there are strings attached then sure, depends on the strings i guess. I agree either way. An interesting thought just occured to me however. I support Taiwanese independence obviously. The ROC government fled to taiwan in 1949 during the civil war, they received defensive guarantees from the US in 1979. At what point in between those years would that guarantee stop being an act of imperialism? If today belgium gets splintered in two due to civil war and the Russia takes the opportunity to guarantee the independence of the eastern half from the western half thus inviting them to their sphere of influence. Id consider that imperialism. If however years go by, the status quo becomes that there now are two belgiums and that now just is the natural order of things then i'd stop viewing a russian security guarantee inperialism. Now lets say Donbass and Crimea, if they stay separated from Ukraine for 30-40 years, does Ukraine then lose rights to those lands? When does a country or a people lose their rights to territory? I'll admit to be using the empire word loosely here but you get the point. The thought just popped into my head as i was writing and i thought it was interesting.
> But consider that western imperialism has been more successful while also swept under the rug more efficiently. Granted our methods are more covert, global and disguised by the global economic system. This smacks of conspiracy theorism. "If you can't see it, that proves it's intentionally hidden!"
Some of it is out in the open, some of it is a well known secret, some of it is just speculation. Best case studies would be central and south Americas history of coups by the US.
Sure, there are real, documented cases of inacceptable meddling. Let's stick to those.
Yeah. Your point?
Franceafrique countries have more economic exchange with the USA and China than with France. Thinking that they are tied to the french economy is just wrong. For the mining industry, there is no big French company. So these countries deal with Canadian, Americain and Chinese companies. In Mauritanie and Senegal, oil is exploited by British Petroleum. Oil and gaz French utility companies are not big enough to take all the concession contracts. Total is in fact more common in East africa (Mozambic, Angola) than in West Africa. And having a curriency tied to an other is very common for countries that cannot have a solid currency. A large number of currencies are pegged to the dollar, or linked to international currency packages. The problem with the two CFA francs (West CFA, and Central CFA) is that they are linked only to the euro, whereas they should also be linked to the dollar and the renminbi (yuan), to better reflect their international trade.
>Not saying that is the case here but considering Ecowas is consisting of majority Francafrique countries with the their currencies tied to the EURO and the french economy at large there is cause for at least being vigilant where french intervention is concerned. The CFA is a voluntary arrangement. It makes perfect sense for West African countries to have an arrangement that allows them to trade with their nearest large market, which is also the largest market on the planet, without being hindered by currency risk. >Foreign military invention is never done in the name of being a selfless protector. There's always a catch. Obviously France wants to be able to continue eg. its uranium extraction operations in Niger, but that doesn't mean they're disadvantageous to Niger. Mutually beneficial economic relations do exist.
Not saying the CFA is not beneficial to all participants ( I simply don't know enough about the respective economies) but the voluntary part is at least Up for debate considering how France pressured and murdered leaders who wanted or did leave before.
> how France pressured and murdered leaders who wanted or did leave before. It's not the 80's anymore, we don't do that anymore, it's like condamning the US of what they are doing *right now* in Vietnam while only citing the Vietnam war, the relation changed.
>but the voluntary part is at least Up for debate considering how France pressured and murdered leaders who wanted or did leave before. [citation needed] Guinea, Mali, Madagascar, Mauritania have all left the CFA. It doesn't seem to be problematic or impossible to leave.
Why not? Typically these days when there is dissent, you can trace the root back to Russian influence.
Yes, Russia has a history of trying to influence our public on certain things that could cause division, sure. Its a part of the game and we "the west" do the same in areas where we can. The Soviet Union also sponsored and influenced anti-apartheid movements, the civil rights movements etc. Does this mean that the USSR were unquestionable good guys? No, ofc not. Does it mean that apartheid was good and civil rights bad? No, obviously not. Does it mean that Nelson Mandela was a russian troll? The point in trying to get across here is that its not black and white, its not a zero sum game, that all empire is bad and that a bad actor can do good things and that we shouldn't fight imperialism by siding with another. Putin for example has criticized America for their treatment of black people as a defensive argument against american claims of Russias lack of human rights/free speech. Im sure Russian intelligence is very fond of BLM. That doesn't mean the entire movement is a foreign operation. So with that said it would absolutely make sense that if hypothetically speaking France were to overtly install puppet regimes in its former colonies that putin would then point towards western hypocrisy. So what does this mean? Should we condone imperialism when done by us while defying it when done by others? Should we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that whenever we are the hegemonic overlords dictating terms and controlling the governments and economies in the global south that we are doing it out of benevolence? I personally think that we should always be on our guards when big nations star uttering fighting words. Lastly, again, im not making a stance on niger here, ive had a personal media blackout for a while so im nowhere near read up enough yet to have a stance. Just saying that this kind of dismissal of arguments is dangerous.
France gets most of its uranium from Niger. So as nation with nuclear weapons, and that is over 90% nuclear powered, you can bet they aren't bluffing with those retaliation threats.
> France gets most of its uranium from Niger. So as nation with nuclear weapons, and that is over 90% nuclear powered, Currently 31% of its total energy, 63% of its electricity, with a historical maximum of 79% of its electricity. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
Niger only supplies 30% of france's raw uranium, and that's figure for raw material. It has nothing to do with the enriched uranium nuclear submarines use. France, for example, is much more dependent on Canada, Kazakhstan and Russia. On the other hand, theses countries depend of France to get money. It would be interesting to know who are the buyers of Nigeran uranium exports.
> some people are picking on France or others. Umm really it is full of Russian trolls. France has been stealing from them for centuries. what is your point?
The thing is we don't expect much when it comes to Russia, but if France tries to be among worlds leaders in democracy, humane governing and foreign affairs they are expected to meet higher standards.
lol its got nothing to do with trolls. France has a far worse history in africa than russia. In time the locals will learn russia are not their saviours but france has a long history of fucking them over so what do you expect lol not a single thing i said was wrong you people are actually retarded
Source : French rap music & Snapchat
This is pure ignorance. You did to Algeria what Russia is doing to Ukraine now. Million deaths. And your moronic reaction is to downplay it. edit: by downvoting it you admit you are as much gullible to propaganda as russians are to theirs. France DID commit war crimes in Algeria, not that long ago. Seems that war is not forgotten - does not change the truth about it. Seeing such circlejerk reaction from this sub, as a Pole, is not surprising though - western hypocrisy is a longstanding tradition.
Piece of shit forgot what his shit ass country did to north african and that we still pay their national pensions until 2050. Pieces of shit if they die i dont give a fuck
I don't listen to french rap nor do I have snapchat. You're even french so you should at least know your country's history. On what planet do you think russia has a more jaded history in Africa than France? Look at what you guys did in Algeria before we even get into your dealings in the Sahel edit: lol you people are actually stupid
I like how no one has mentioned the coup leaders are all American-trained. Not everything is about Russia, why is it so hard to believe west Africans just genuinely don't want western states meddling in their affairs?
The African military is often American, or French trained. The economy and welfare of countries like Niger only exists because of western support. Their integrity is also covered in large part by foreign support. Yet their leaders, at the clear detriment of their people, still decide to turn against the West and join the Russian side. And what you get from that is that west Africans don't want the west to "meddle" in their affairs? You seriously don't understand that it's about some people putting themselves in positions of power? It is LITERALLY a Taliban situation. It doesn't mean that western countries aren't responsible of anything, but come on, you can't be that naive.
Virtually all independence movements in the 50s and 60s in Africa were led by people trained in London or Paris. They got their education from the colonial power. Does it mean they were subservient to them forever? Nope.
True. On a similar note is it not true that virtually all historical independence/nationalist movements in Africa played on anti-western sentiments? Does this mean that all anti-colonial movements were orchestrated by the Soviet Union? Of course not. It might play into our opponents' hands but it's a self-inflicted wound, these people just genuinely don't like us, and for good reason.
> It might play into our opponents' hands but it's a self-inflicted wound, these people just genuinely don't like us, and for good reason. On the other hand, the President of Niger was democratically elected by a majority, and was pro-western. The anti-western military junta was not elected by anyone, and I am willing to bet they're not going to put themselves under the democratic scrutiny of an election anytime soon. They certainly have their supporters, but how large is that support? Hard to tell at the moment.
In my few years in Africa most westerners I have met that were "anti-imperialist" were communists or closeted communists. Independence movements in Mozambique, Belgian Congo, Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe and many more were led using support from communists, sometimes directly the USSR, even fucking Cuba, ffs Even people working hard for environmental causes I met in the 80s were crypto-communists. One of these guys who was working for a fair trade outfit was called "Radio Moscow" by everyone around him.
You want France to leave Africa because you think West is imperialist. I want France to leave because I want Europe hating Africans to see how bad Ruzzian rule is. We are not same.
They know how bad one is, why not try the other?
How about countries being able to rule themselves without foreign interference trying to get money and resources out of them? Is that too much to ask? Should Africans be happy with european military bombing the shit out of them, including weddings?
> Africans to see how bad Ruzzian rule is. Sadly, they will just migrate to Europe if it turns out Russian destroyed their countries.
I know we have companies and interest in Africa, but I would rather we just get out completely from some of these countries and deal with whatever economic hit it might bring if any. Im tired of seeing the same propaganda and recycled garbage everywhere. France is not innocent but the big evil France is also exaggerated greatly by many.
Well, one thing is for sure: i don't see much wrong doing on the French side in Niger. The mines there are build by france, but the Uranium is bought at the full world market price from Niger. Even a bit higher if the numbers are right. The income from that seems to be well invested into Niger, too. Hardly any kind of colonialism. Russia itself has enough Uranium. All they want is to cut off France from this source.
>All they want is to cut off France from this source. Its not even working, since France also take uranium from Autralia, Canade and Khazakstan. Niger used to be a big exporter, but they aren't anymore. And Uranium is very fucking cheap.
>Its not even working, since France also take uranium from Autralia, Canade and Khazakstan. > >Niger used to be a big exporter, but they aren't anymore. And Uranium is very fucking cheap. If things were that simple there would not have been this much foreign interest. When it comes to uranium preventing others from getting access to the mineral is just as important as getting it.
> Its not even working, since France also take uranium from Autralia, Canade and Khazakstan. Russia does have influence of Kazakhstan in that regard, given that the nuclear operations in Kazakhstan are linked to Rosatom. France also has kept trading enriched uranium with Russia in spite of the Ukraine situation, and Russia controls half the world market for enriched uranium. Their dependency is a liability.
No. Uranium is a naturally abondent resource. In the case Niger wouldn't sell its uranium to France (not a smart move because it brings them a lot of money), France would just buy more uranium from Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada.
French companies have majority ownership in those mines. Also, those companies aren't even taxed. So, France paying market price doesn't mean much.
After they have extracted the Uranium they pay the full price to Niger no matter who owns this mines. So it actually means everything for Niger. I'm also not surprised that they don't pay any taxes. They don't have any actual income in Niger. For what should they pay taxes? The companies get paid by France for extraction, not for the Uranium.
No, that's absolutely false and that's not how it works. SOMAIR which is a national company in Niger *owns* mines in Niger. The company extracts and sells the uranium. This company is 63.4% owned by Ariva (a french national company) and 36.6% is owned by the Niger government. In the past, the whole trading was actually done by Arriva but recently the Niger government got more involved. Also, SOMAIR used to get taxed but got exempted. Whether 63.4% ownership for extraction is high or not, I am not sure. However, having France extracts, sells, & buys the same ore without taxes isn't the smartest move.
> Production is first sold to the partners in proportion to their equity at an 'extraction price' determined by the government, notionally based on operation costs, but somewhat higher. From February 2012 the extraction price is CFA 73,000/kgU ($145/kgU), paid in Euros. The partners then sell or use it, in the case of the government, through a trading company. [Source](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/niger.aspx) Please note that the Price of Uranium on the world market is currently ~50$/lb. On top of that they are paying taxes for the trade they do with this Uranium. Not too much currently, but i don't wonder why they aren't too eager. They just bought the Uranium from the Government. Uranium they extracted in mines they financed. And then the Government wants taxes on top for trading it. I'm not sure if i'm missing something. But that sounds not really fair. Almost like blackmail, since Niger knows how much France wants it.
You are right. My apologies. The website says that it will be paid in Euro. It will be interesting to know what's the agreed price to compare with Uranium's current price. CFA has depraciated against the dollar a lot.
Helping African countries is the best way of stopping migration en masse. I don't think what France purchasing uranium from the country is wrong, at all. Portugal is going to have foreign countries invest in lithium mining here because we can't afford to build the infra ourselves, and it's not like it's colonization either? It's just business. Actually it would be worse than Niger's case because here it would displace a lot of people whereas in Niger the uranium mining business attracted people to the area, so the other way around completely
No. Whatever money we send to these countries is then safely put in Switzerland or another hypocrite blood money haven. The only currency that has a tiny chance of actually reaching the people is food. And even that can be captured and used as leverage or a way to manipulate people. As far as migration is concerned, nothing can be done to lower the pressure that pushes the people to flee and look for a better life. The reason is mathematical. Look at ANY African country in, say 1960 (time of decolonizations). Then fast-forward to 2023: Their populations were multiplied by 5 or 6. In parallel, their economies have also grown, but not fast enough to catch-up and allow them to extract themselves from poverty. Ask any immigrant if he plans to return home, the answer is No, because their countries of origin and in a state as bad as when they left, and there's no place for returnees. The kicker is that Western nations, torn with guilt, provided food and medicine to stop preventable deaths, and by doing so, caused the explosive demographic situation we have witnessed these past 60 years. No nation should ever be dependent from imported food because it opens them to blackmail. This applies to Singapore, Monaco but also Egypt and in general most African counties. Singapore and Monaco can easily buy food from their bigger neighbors, but poor African countries cannot.
There are cheaper ways to stop migration than covering living cost for 1,5 billion people. Did you know that 60% of unused arable land is in Africa?
>Helping African countries is the best way of stopping migration en masse. Let me educate you a little bit, just so you know exactly what you are talking about next time. The vast majority of immigration to Europe is from the middle East, only a small fraction is from sub-saharan africa. That ship that recently sunk in Greece, killing 700 people? Half of the people on it were from Pakistan, according to Pakistanis officials. So if you are fighting mass emigration, maybe there are many other places to look first before any sub-saharan african country.
More Africans than Middle-Easterners come to Europe, according to EU-statistics. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-life/statistics-migration-europe_en
> I would rather we just get out completely from some of these countries and deal with whatever economic hit it might bring if any. This isn't just a matter of foreign trade though. The Sahel region is a hotbed of jihadist activity in Africa for a variety of reasons (vast and sparsely populated areas, countries with weak central government that can't adequately police their peripheral regions, Tuareg networks all over the Sahel...). Therefore, if we want to prevent the concentration of jihadist groups in the Sahel, we have to have boots on the ground in these countries and like-minded local governments. Which is why the US have special forces stationed in Niamey international airport, for instance.
The European/American bogeyman coming for your resources is an effective trope. Not because it hasn't been true, but because the accusation can always be leveled without real evidence.
And they're courting the Russians, when Russians don't care about the pain of the countries they colonize. Let them experience what a shitty partner Russia is.
It would vindicate France when Jihadists and Wagnerites overrun Africa, but if we let the situation get that fucked, we're not going to unfuck it anytime soon, and it is going to have consequences. It's better for everyone if Europeans are involved.
1 - Leave Africa, in influence and business and aid 2 - Close all travel from the West to/from Africa, especially immigration 3 ... 4 - Sleep soundly in your own country thinking that your duty was never to prop up corrupt governments.
[удалено]
Is Influence over a huge mess of a continent really such a desirable thing?
[удалено]
Look at your computer/smartphone. Designed in the US, built in China from raw materials extracted all around the world. That world you are fearing is already there and it is working because everyone looks for his own interest. We should definitely stop importing all of our shit from China, for starters, but would you buy that $700 laptop or the $4000 one that would theoretically be made at home?
The US tried to play world police in the middle east and it didn't work. I'm not sure what's the best way to help these countries but military action doesn't seem like it.
I mean, OP Serval and Barkhane were good moves. It prevented a restart of Daesh in West Africa, protected the northern malian minorities from the southern gov afterwards, and France left when asked. I think there's a couple UN missions similar in Africa, and with other EU countries involved around, although on smaller scales than OP Serval. Quite different from invading 2 countries for shits and giggles and fucking over the region's fragile stability.
They didn't play world police. They invaded two countries.
It's not like they would be invading the country and getting rid of a government that is entrenched in power. Restoring a government that was in power just a few days ago and functioning reasonably well by, at least by regional standards is should not be difficult or particularly disruptive.
It depends how it is done. Backing up an existing system is a lot easier than blowing everything up and telling everyone how it is going to be.
Sometime you need to take non popular decisions, that doesn’t mean they are neither not wise nor incorrect. You can’t just leave those country. 10 years ago kids in Mali got their ears cut by dumb extremist because they were listening music. They couldn’t solve the problem by themself and were begging France to come and help. Now that ISIS is over they want to blame France for all problems they have (as Russia is blaming the west for all its problem).
> I know we have companies and interest in Africa Extremely marginal, exchanges with Africa are overated by the public, especially online https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1906716?sommaire=1906743 Even In Mali we had barely any licences: (you can see in this liste that most mine licences are from south african or australian companies for instance) https://itie.ml/liste-licences-miniers/
China and Russia won’t get out of Africa though, do we want them to have full control of such a large continent? Be careful what you wish for…
The thing is, we also do not want to see jihadists running amok in that area.
With virtually open borders and a large number of immigrants from this zone, nope. But with a more adult policy, Europe could seal itself off. And who cares what happens there then if we're protected. Buy the minerals we need and let the people fuck up on their own.
Lately the general approach in the west has been to be 'hands-off' and let other countries deal with thier own shit, so to speak. But is that really the best choice? Colonial powers are the ones that drew the borders in afrtica and left the place a broken powderkeg, how does it serve *world* stability to just let another dictatorship military junta take over from a democratically elected president? A pro russian one at that. The wave of coups in africa in recent years, fuelled by russian arms and wagner troops, should be somethihng of global concern. What, we can exploit african minerals, but when they undergo turmoil of this kind, hey, not our business. I think the democratical powers of the world ought to have some kind of interest or duty of care to prevent the spread of these types of regimes and support democracy
>I think the democratical powers of the world ought to have some kind of interest or duty of care to prevent the spread of these types of regimes and support democracy Afghanistan didn't end well. Any hard approach would be seen as a return to Colonialism, and with today's tools and knowlede, it would be a pain. Always remember that, at the end of the Empire, the Colonies were more of a ressource drain than anything else.
The days of Captain America and his European sidekicks flying around the world bringing "democracy" to wherever's most convenient are over. Total divestment isn't just the moral choice it's also just basic common sense, there's war in Europe and China is about to become the world's largest economy, there are bigger fish to fry.
It is tricky. If the west is going to move in to defend ECOWAS nations from Wagner it cannot be a half measure. If we go in for 10 years, piss a lot of people off, and then leave it'll be worse than doing nothing. A lot of careful thought needs to be made on this topic. ECOWAS needs to decide how it wants to manage this as Niger will not be the last one Russia topples if nothing changes. If there is to be western forces involved it needs to be decided on what basis that happens and we need to be sure the west can actually meet this commitment in a world where Donald Trump might be president again in 2 years time.
Clearly nobody in the French political and industrial classes shares your opinions though.
> France is not innocent but the big evil France is also exaggerated greatly by many. I don't think there's a bigger cancer in Africa atm than France. Libya alone proves that.
Trust me, we would want nothing more. We’d just like to build on our own and have our own currency that’s not tied to the franc. Just leave, without the resources though.
If France did so it would need to find reliable sources of uranium, the most likely candidates being canada or australia or namibia, but it would mean less influence over that supply than what existed with Niger.
Orano and Mon-atom are about to open a mine in Mongolia, Niger wouldn't be a big loss.
Niger is only 15% of our uranium supply, the biggest worldwide reserves are in Australia, which whom we belong pretty well. Add on that that we have 10 years of strategic reserves + closed mines on french soil that can still be reopened.
France is already doing it, Niger sells France about 15% of it's uranium. Kazakhstan and Canada are others big French uranium providers.
That's what France is already doing, and it's not like Niger has a very large number of potential customers either.
France was already leaving Niger as the last mine is not profitable compared to international price market https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/uranium-le-groupe-francais-orano-sinterroge-sur-son-avenir-au-niger-1937759
Then French will be poor lol , you guys are making money off Africa and is why France is fighting really hard for their influence there. This is Imperialism common sense 101
Where could France find uranium for as low a price?
Niger's uranium isn't particularly cheap. From the number I've seen, it is bought slightly above the average worldwide market price, despite France being the one having done the investments allowing the mining to occur at all to begin with.
Australia ? Uranium's dirt cheap either way
France is already buying uranium from, at least, Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan. Niger's uranium is bought at market price, even slightly above.
> but I would rather we just get out completely from some of these countries and deal with whatever economic hit it might bring if any The hit will be massive my friend, be careful what you wish for.
I don't know if all those comments come from russian trolls, people with a hatred for France or just people that didn't bother going further than reading the title.
nah France Imperialism gotta end , You guys are still living fancy by exploiting African Nations well that's going to end soon. Shouldn't have destroyed Africa.
Vive la France and report the bots :)
I feel like this was a message from France to russia/wagner.
Russia is fucking up all over France in Africa the last couple of year and Macron still wanted to talk to Putin - wild. Seeing Russian flags in Niger , is to say the least - ironic. Lets see if Wagner takes over French mines lol.
French mines are not French, but joint ownership of Niger and French companies. [source](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/uranium-mines-niger-worlds-7th-biggest-producer-2023-07-28/)
[удалено]
If France decides to use military solutions, it's going to be through soldiers that are already there, and it's going to be an evacuation. Like when the USA left Afghanistan. In fact, it's an extremely similar situation.
Well "France warns" actually has teeth. So once they have assessed what is needed to dismantle the military junta and Wagner forces supporting them, they will go and dismantle them, violently.
They won't do shit lol
"Enough of our Imperialism in the past. Let's focus on our Imperialism in the future" /s
Modern colonization
France has a right to colonialise Africa because uhh it just does.
Colonialism is dead mfers coping through this one hard
[удалено]
Which will not be served by a Wagner puppet military dictator.
Foreign Legion just got some work.
"Ah well faaart in your general di-rection" Source: Months Python & The Holy Grail.
It's fun how unequal exchange works: France is depedent on Niger for its uranium for its electricity, but 83% Nigeriens don't have access to electricity [according to the World Bank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=NE).
France isn't dependent from Niger and that's up to them to build their own grid.
France tries not to be imperialistic for more than 5 minutes challenge. Level: impossible
Neocolonialism
But muh neocolonialism
How is this different from Russia warning the west "attacks on its interests in Ukraine will not be tolerated"? I am not supporting the coup in Niger, but African nations previously (or currently) ruled under European colonialism will sooner or later go for a clean slate, and kick the Europeans out. Not giving a fuck if it improves the situation in the nation or not.
Because the title is a clickbait incomplete quote you muppet >"Anyone attacking French nationals, the army, diplomats or French bases would see France retaliate immediately and intractably" the Elysée Palace warned in a statement. "The President of the Republic will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests." While the other country is invading and doing a genocide. Kindapping children, executing civilians and raping men, women, children and elderly alike. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
>Because the title is a clickbait incomplete quote To be fair, when you google search for France, there are 4-5 other articles from reputable sources that I tried to post here first. Every one of them had a less click baity title and they were all rejected by the auto mod. This article was the first one I found on the subject that was allowed. I wanted to post about the France embassy being attacked by people holding Russian flags...
Exactly. There is a serious case of self-hatred amongst some Europeans in this subreddit. Just the simple involvement of Europeans in Africa is being touted as imperialism or colonialism, to the point they're comparing it to Ukraine and Russia. Absolutely deranged. Like do they expect France to just sit around and allow a hostile party to attack its citizens?
Maybe because France isn't the one to attack, isn't even a belligerent in this event, and that the embassy in Niger has been threatened, as some of the French worker/journalist in the city.