.png)
By Nydia Ndam Carrillo
Editor - Lara-Mai Crease
The opinions expressed in this article reflect the opinions of its author(s). They do not represent the views of the UCL International Relations Society, Circum Mundum, or its Editorial Team.
To hear about a coup in Africa is not surprising. Out of the 106 successful coups between 1950 and 2018, 44 percent occurred in Africa. It is, however, interesting to observe that since 1990, the francophone states have had a drastically high number of coups in comparison to other sub-Saharan African countries. There is a pattern of dissatisfaction that has manifested for decades now, but the tangibility of this fact has only gained notoriety with the coup in Niger, which follows coups in Mali and Guinea in 2021, and Burkina Faso in 2022.
Niger’s military coup on July 26th of this year, overthrowing the government of President Mohamed Bazoum placed General Abdourahamane Tiani as head of state. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has communicated its intent to use military power unless Bazoum recovers its position and has imposed numerous sanctions. Additionally, France and the US condemned the military’s actions though Biden’s administration has not classified the takeover as a coup.
Consequently, Mali and Burkina Faso, also currently controlled by military juntas, expressed their support to Niger with a warning that an ECOWAS intervention would prompt a response leading to military action. Additionally, Russian and Chinese presence in the area cannot be overlooked, as they appear as a possible alternative to the Western presence that has remained for decades despite colonial liberation.
Pan-Africanism & Anti-Western Sentiment
Africa, which has been silenced by the weight of historical practices, finally rejects the West's never-ending imposition. In 2022, a survey from Afrobarometer Institute revealed that 64% of Nigeriens oppose foreign forces to ensure the security of Niger; only 6.1% still view France and the EU as beneficial allies and 4.1% view America’s military support as beneficial. These results can be explained as general discontent with French paternalism rooted in colonialist practices. From the establishment of la Françafrique after World War II as a method to ensure the remaining of France’s influence in Africa throughout the creation of the CFA, to the current presence of Washington and Paris in Niamey, Niger is still dominated by foreign powers.
Even though independence was achieved by all the former French colonies in Africa, most of them signed agreements which completely tied them to France, economically and politically, which casts doubt on the degree of independence granted to the colonies, when it relied fully on agreements crafted by France for France’s benefit exclusively. These agreements gave France an economic advantage, providing priority access to all exports, succeeded in avoiding custom duties and most importantly, ensured a reserve of goods like hydrocarbons and uranium.
Ironically, the CFA, encompassing most former colonies except Mauritania and Guinea, was meant to alleviate the economic instability which resulted from French exploitation. As a principle, colonies were obliged to keep 50% of their foreign currency reserves in the French treasury in addition to 20% in case of financial liabilities. This resulted in little per capita growth and has weakened the fight against poverty, as well as generated fiscal constraints and hindered macroeconomic options. Animosity remains, as a result of this unequal power relation between France and Niger that has prevented economic growth in the region, especially as the latter still has a weak domestic energy production, with around 70% being imported from Nigeria.
The key element to all of these techniques of control is paternalism. France, post-colonialism, designed a strategy meant to salvage the African countries from the decaying state they were left in as a result of the French invasion. They contribute to the destabilization of their economy, adding difficulty to any sort of development. To this day, France actively partakes in this systematic abuse that forbids the flourishing of the West Sahara. Emmanuel Macron, the first French president born after colonial rule, aimed to cut all ties with colonialism, profusely declaring he and his generation will not ‘come and tell Africa what to do’. However, he preserved French paternalism, ensuring President Charles de Gaulle’s legacy persisted by ensuring France’s sovereignty over West Africa. But the empire falls. France surrendered and withdraws its remaining 1,500 troops in Nigerien territory, and Niger, along with Burkina Faso and Mali, symbolize the start of the end of French hegemony in West Africa.
Niger: Ally or Pawn?
In contrast to the usual Western apathy to other coups in Africa, why has the coup in Niger awakened a surprisingly severe international response? Niger is an invaluable asset to the West and to lose it would greatly affect their agenda. Being the 7th largest uranium producer in the world, this industry has been controlled by French industries such as Orano, providing 25% of the European Union supply. Additionally, Niger is rich in large oil deposits, though those are now being produced by means of a partnership with China and their petroleum corporation.
Moreover, Niger is seen by most EU countries as vital in the prevention of irregular immigration, following the implementation of tougher laws, with Italy having troops there as part of a tougher strategy. Lastly, the US, which for the past years, has contributed to the fight against terrorism and crime in West Africa, has done so by having military bases in Niger which have contributed to the protection of the status quo of the US against China and Russia, and information gathering of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda affiliates through drones. Niger has benefited from this relationship with the American superpower, becoming the largest recipient of Washington’s military assistance in West Africa, helping strengthen their own military. The coup means a potential halt to this relationship, pausing all data collection and action against terrorist groups.
However, Nigeriens’ unhappiness keeps on growing, and it is not without reason. Firstly, the French have been unable to adequately fight terrorist groups despite having the power to do so, disregarding how these groups utilize local organizations to target regional areas which allows these jihadist groups to thrive, which showcases the selective ignorance that characterizes the majority of Western powers. Secondly, France exploited Niger for its natural richness rather than strengthening the institutions. Thirdly, the focus on terrorism in African countries by Washington is seen mostly as a façade to preserve US interests, and besides military funding, no aid is provided for the improvement of the economy and protection of democracy, highlighting the American essence of saving their own skin above anything. Fourthly, the immigration policies have generated frustration due to the weakening of the local economy, which relied greatly on the income generated by the influx of migrants; and their own government has subsequently been criticized as too obliging to the EU immigration policy. Lastly, Niger’s government has been rumoured to have given almost half of the defence budget to private contractors during Bazoum’s administration.
The Lesser Evil?
Days after the coup in Niger, junta supporters were seen waving Russian flags to condemn France, a representation of the discontent with French abusive conduct in the nation. Military juntas are thriving throughout West Africa for their manifestation of strong anti-French sentiment. Aware of the little improvement in their society, the juntas present an alternative reality by establishing legitimacy and looking for other support, mainly Russia’s. Russia is now present in Mali and Burkina Faso, and it could be an opportunity for the Kremlin to defy the West’s status quo in Niger and solidify its position in Africa.
Ultimately, Niger ends up a pawn, a victim of the war of interests between the East and the West, with their needs being overlooked by the great balance of powers. Yes, Niger’s coup could finally destabilize the position of the West in Africa, but the timing of it all calls for the question of whether this was the right decision. Could this end up as a lose-lose situation? The security problem in Niger has worsened throughout the years with jihadism advancing, and their breakup with the US and France adds difficulty to the improvement of the situation. Simultaneously, if they were to turn to the Kremlin, Niger will realize Russia cannot compete with the capitalist superpowers following their involvement in financing the juntas in Mali and Burkina Faso and the war in Ukraine.
For the moment, Niger rejects the role of safeguarding order in Sahel as a representative of Western interests. It will be interesting to observe whether the junta will survive the test of time, avoid the corruption that characterizes coups, and truly transform the situation in Niger; and if Niger can be the flame to ignite the fire of revolution in the Françafrique and completely dissolve the last remains of French sovereignty in sub-Saharan Africa.
Comments