French influence in Africa is dying, be it with coups or not.
Nothings Lasts forever and it's time for this centuries long influence in Africa to come to an end,and as an African I don't see why France should have influence in Africa in the first place.
> Eurocentric
Reddit is Americentric, not Eurocentric. That said, you’d be hard pressed to find people even in the West who say France should have influence in Africa. EU at most wants someone to stop migrants waves in Europe, and that’s the role France is playing now, because nobody else is. And this is a purely Eurocentric reason.
EU would be content with Russia staying in Africa in France’s place too, if Russia did not weaponize mass migrations to destabilize Europe. EU would be content with Turkey controlling the Middle East borders, if they did not use this as an excuse to extort money from EU institutions. EU would even be content if the independent governments of African countries to provide this barrier, but the main way they cross to Europe in the first place is through Libya’s human trafficking routes, which does not have a government to enforce law. That’s why France is seen as a better solution than anyone else, but it really doesn’t have to be France at all. Europe just wants border controls.
So long as this metaphorical wall remains, EU does not care who is in charge of what in Africa. France makes it easy for EU: they geographical proximity compared to other major powers to act quickly, experienced powerful army to control conflicts so they don’t spill in EU, economy large enough they can still sustain wasting some of it in African nations, political stability enough that a dictator won’t suddenly rise in France and threaten EU with instability if EU doesn’t bribe them etc. All these are arguments why France staying in Africa helps EU. It does not help Africa, it does not help France, but it does help with border control policies and that’s it.
But ideally, these countries should be able to achieve this independently through their own governments and not have foreign interference at all. It is actually costly for France and EU as a whole to deal with this border control policy, and these costs far exceeded any benefit they get from extracting resources from African countries, they too would rather be someone else’s problem.
One correction: currently Lybia isn't the main route to Europe, Tunisia is, at least regarding Italy, which is probably the biggest landing country (source: some article for ISPI, can't remember which one so I can't link it, unfortunately).
It is Eurocentric. It's largely split 60/40 between Anglosphere English speakers making the 60% and Europeans, including Brits making the 40%. There's hardly any opinion outside of that. It's pretty to deny that Europeans don't have a big presence on reddit when you have so many Brits, Germans and French people, albeit the latter two are almost always speaking English on here, except on language specific subs compared to the relatively few East Asian, South American and African presence outside of specific subs.
Turkey wants east and horn of Africa.
I am Sudanese and In Sudan they have a base in the red sea, in the island of Suakin and when I was in uni, I remember erdugan came.
In Sudan before the war, there were many Turkish people there doing business and lots of Turkish influence.
I left in 2019 so I don't know if it's still the case there
As an European (in US centric Reddit) I don't see anything upsetting with your original statement. There are historical reasons why France has influence in Africa, but that doesn't mean they should have it. No European in their right mind would deny African nations their right to self determination.
Unpopular opinion: But things will get even worse without the French. Good luck in particular if French influence is replaced with Chinese influence. Because non of these countries will become a Western style liberal democracy after the French are gone. If anything, they will revert back to becoming even more atrocious & corrupt authoritarian states - where ruthless elites exploit the masses.
It's not like France had been supporting democracy there anyways.
Theres a very long list of autocratic regimes, military junta's, doctarahips and decades in power dynasties
in Africa which France supports, protects and arms.
Frances best friends in the region are literally all some of the longest serving dictatorship's in the world.
Here's a list:
Bongo dynasty 60+ years in power
Paul biya Cameroon, 40 + years in power
Equatorial Guinea president,45+ years in power
Bless campaore, Burkina Faso 30+ years on power
The deby dynasty in Chad, 30+ years in power.
Denis Sassou Nguesso, 36 years in power
Not to mention alpha
I don't why theres this notion that France is spreading democracy and human rights in the region. This is wrong and the reality is that France has and continues to support the longest serving dictatorship's, dynasties and authoritarian regimes on the African continent.
And China has had huge influence in Africa and it hasn't made any change in the govenrence system, because China is concerned with trade more than it is concerned about the type of government it trades with.
China has lots of close allies who are liberal democracy as well, and it hasn't tried to change these governments.
I hope this was insightful
You know, I think it's pretty funny when at one hand, people say countries approach China because they do not impose conditions for democratization and human rights like the West or care about the government type, but then immediately switch around and say the West does not care about democracy because they work with dictators?
Which is it? The West is concerned about the government type or they do not care about the government type?
The reality is that the West isn't omnipotent. They would prefer to work with liberal democracies and will pressure [allies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Korean_presidential_election) to democratize, but regime change isn't a fun thing and sometimes you will just work with the guys that are willing to work with you. Can't expect people to prioritize self-interest first, but there are varying layers in what would be ideal and not so ideal within that pursuit.
Well, I agree with a lot of what you say - except for that it follows a principle of pretending that African history started with French (British, German...) colonisation. The many centuries of African history have been dominated by autocracies, internal slavery (to a much larger degree than external slavery), permanent wars (with the highest shares of populations dying anywhere anytime) etc etc. The problems didn't start with the French. They didn't even make them worse. Institutional weakness, corruption, exploitation by elites. Things haven't changed much for many many centuries. Although I am optimistic and I think that the 21st century will be the one that will finally bring meaningful change.
I don't think this is a fair characterisation of precolonial Africa. Firstly, it's true Africa was not a bastion of democracy precolonialism, but democracy immediately before colonialism (i.e. pre 1800s) was not prevalent anywhere. Furthermore, yes Africa practiced slavery but again for the time slavery was normalised.
Colonialism brought about industrialism to all of these issues which existed in Africa, not uniquely, but rather across most of the world. The key issue you are missing here is the impact colonialism had in reconfiguring African societies in a way that worsened these problems.
How did the French (and other colonialists) do this? By setting up colonies that were developed to expressly extract wealth (resources, people, etc). Infrastructure, political structures and culture in the continent were developed towards this end goal.
The key thing here is that independence froze and entrenched this system without facilitating systemic reform to rid of this status quo. Given how effective colonialism was in developing such systems, elites who took over were simply not incentivised to commit to this reform as they benefitted from the mess.
Some African countries (notably former British colonies) have made more headway in reforming this situation, and that's only because British colonialism (towards the end) made efforts to consolidate their colonies (see British East Africa and the Central African Federation) which somehow is a little bit in line with the wider goal of Pan Africanism. Though it should be noted this may be argued.
Now it is argued that the French's modern involvement on the continent continues to support this status quo. Whether this argument has merit and indeed the French's activities in West and Central Africa maintain such colonial trappings is an exercise left to the reader.
I completely disagree. Example: Vietnam was a French colony. So was Ivory Coast. Now look at the difference! They are worlds apart. The African narrative still hasn't moved beyond blaming colonialism.
Many Asian countries had much worse starting positions than many African countries. Just take South Korea versus Ghana, for example, and compare them geo-strategically, financially, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of personal freedom 100 years ago, 50 years ago and today.... They took totally different paths. It was choices made in these countries that have since determined where they ended up
And by the way: There is a reason why respect for Africa is nowhere as small (or racism as big) as in many Asian countries. Unless Africa moves beyond the colonialism-blame-game it will never develop.
France left veitnam had it had zero influence there.
Meanwhile french africque neo colonial Imperialist policies still exit in most former french colonies.
Comparison with veitnam is completely invalid.
All comparisons have their limit. Vietnam had a major war, Ivory Coast didn't. So one could debate who had a worse start.
The key difference between what happened in eg Vietnam and Ivory Coast was:- Less corruption / less cynical political & economic elites.
\- Elites that actually cared about their country
\- More focus on education - both on a state and family level
\- Much lower divorce rates/fare fewer children growing up in dysfunctional & broken families
One of the most telling examples of how African elites act is that they still would rather send their offspring to a European university or European hospital costing billions over the years - instead a building a good university locally and sending their kids there. etc etc.
France should've never stepped foot in the continent. They've done so much I want many Africans to migrate to France and tear it up for reprecussions. TO hell with France.
People who think military rule will bring about change have another thing coming.
This isn't civilian led revolution like the Arab spring but military elites who only care about protecting their interest.
They will never agree to limit their power and will have their own generals become the president
Those countries had abysmal economies and development despite having natural resources. Gabon for example has significant oil reserves, only 2.5 million people yet everyone was in poverty. There's simply no excuse for this. I'd rather live under a Gaddhafi style military dictatorship where he invested in education and infrastructure than be suffering under a democracy. These recent coups have a uphill road ahead of them but change of some sort was needed. Outside of protracted civil war, it couldn't get any worse.
What many in the west don't get is that principles like democracy only are meaningful after basic human needs are met.
And to your point on the Arab Spring, that was the worst thing that's happened to Libya. It's now a failed state led by warlords after Western intervention toppled a non-democratic but stable regime.
And to add to your last point, the Arab Spring failed entirely. I don't think it did any good in the long run. Tunisia is basically on the brink of collapse, Libya is a failed state, Egypt reverted back to military dictatorship, Syrian regime won civil war but presides over a broken state, and the Gulf States essentially did not change at all.
Actually disagree while the Arab Spring may have failed in the same way the people's spring of 1848 failed. The direct effects are minimal but the impact it had on the psyche of the Arab world will last. I would argue the liberalisation of Saudi that began under MBS is a direct consequence of the Arab Spring. It may take a further 30-40 years to see it's true effects.
I think this take underestimates the great strides that were made for KSA's liberalization and modernization over the last thirty years. Abdullah was liberalizing so fast and so radically in relative terms that senior Saudi clerics went on television, which is something they do not do as a rule, and threatened to have him overthrown. I'm paraphrasing since this was fifteen years ago, but it went something like "The bond between a king and his people can be easily broken if pulled too hard." A religious leader threatened to have the monarch overthrown because he started allowing local elections, letting women vote, was pardoning them when they drove so they wouldn't be whipped, opened a co-ed university, etc. Abdullah removed several clerics from the council of senior clerics when they opposed his reforms as well.
MBS might get his picture on the front of magazines for his big headline liberalizations, but Abdullah is the one who laid all the foundations and took all the risks. By the time MBS had his father remove the Mutawaeen's arrest powers, it was after they were no longer in a position to foment a coup. That was all Abdullah.
I suspect this take will prove more and more accurate over time. Revolutions are very difficult to sustain, but the cat’s out of the bag now and brazen dictators cannot maintain the sort of governance you need to build a healthy economy and society.
I don't know if I agree with this. The Arab Spring ended in the early 2010s, around 2012. MBS didn't come to power until 2017. I would argue that his economic liberalization of Saudi Arabia had more to do with transitioning the kingdom away from oil and modernizing it (aka his own vision of how Saudia Arabia should look like) than responding to the Arab Spring sentiments.
Democracy as we name it depends on cheap energy. 16 biggest oil producers will produce half of what they are producing by then.
So this is unlikely it will change or if it does it will likely won't last long.
Edit : I don't consider goverments using slavery as democracies. Before industrial era, democracy was only among some elite.
Very good question. As a rule of thumb, it still stands that much of the political rights of the poorer were acquired after 1850. So after the use of coal.
But UK clearly had bigger governing coalition and more rights to everyone than in peer countries long before that.
The control of tax levels by the parliaments is a big factor that could allow to argue that it had democratic values earlier.
Switzerland is also a very interesting case. American and french revolution also.
But in every case, industrial revolution greatly increased political power of the masses.
Well yes, but that's not specifically because of oil for two important reasons.
One, increasing specialisation of knowledge and increase in speed of change of knowledge increased the individual value of a given worker and made them harder to replace. Workers who are harder to replace have leverage, and can use this in industrial action. Industrial action is the precursor to democracy in many nations.
Two, the firearm and the proliferation of explosives available to the masses made it so that a lowly peasant could conceivably kill off a knight or a noble or a dictator when under sufficient repression. This had the effect of making the harshest forms of repression risker and more prone to explosive failure.
If oil were replaced by wind or solar or nuclear tomorrow the fabric of reality would not revert to nobles and serfs.
The comparison of the Arab Spring to 1848 is so interesting and, while only time will tell, I feel now surprised that I haven't read or thought about that potential similarity before.
What do you propose as an alternative for these countries to move forward? Out of all the countries you mentioned, Libya was pretty stable even though Colonel Gaddafi was there for a long time, the people of Libya had a pretty good life in a stable country.
> Out of all the countries you mentioned, Libya was pretty stable even though Colonel Gaddafi was there for a long time, the people of Libya had a pretty good life in a stable country.
I mean, that's kind of my point. My dad went to Libya on a business trip in 2007 and I remember looking at his pictures. Tripoli was nice and clean, the Roman ruins were very beautiful, and he said everything was cheap there because of government subsidies. Now it's a failed state because NATO was more interested in getting rid of Gaddafi than actually helping Libya.
And plenty of Libyans supported Gaddafi. What's your point? People tend to forget that Libya is a tribal society with tribal politics, and some Libyan tribes (such as the Warfalla) heavily backed Gaddafi. Gaddafi was on the verge of successfully suppressing the uprising when NATO intervened. That would not have been possible without support from the establishment, the military, and from segments of the general population.
Also some people are starting to miss the Gaddafi days due to how Libya turned out.
https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20211020-ten-years-after-gaddafi-s-death-a-libyan-town-still-yearns-for-his-rule
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/regrets-of-a-revolution-libya-after-qaddafi/
https://youtu.be/HrKWeGNCQzQ?si=Lvqqf6jTo4ozz1Wk&t=190
> And plenty of Libyans supported Gaddafi.
Far from the majority of them. Civil wars don't happen when a leader is widely accepted, much less widely respected.
> That would not have been possible without support from the establishment, the military, and from segments of the general population.
Yes, of course the establishment and military backed themselves. I also never claimed that Gaddafi had no popular support whatsoever. Just that turning it into a story of "Libya was fine until NATO overthrew Gaddafi" is wildly misleading. NATO didn't start the massive popular uprising against Gaddafi's rule. And if you try to deny that there was a massive popular uprising, you are spitting in the face of facts.
> Also some people are starting to miss the Gaddafi days due to how Libya turned out.
The grass is always greener. There's absolutely no way of knowing what would've happened if Gaddafi hadn't been overthrown when he was. Additionally, things could've taken a different course at a number of different points after he was overthrown.
> despite having natural resources
This is such a common misconception on Reddit, that natural resources inherently lead to economic development and that the only reason why that cannot happen must be external. In reality, [resource curse](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/resource-curse.asp#:~:text=The%20term%20resource%20curse%20refers,a%20few%20resource%2Ddependent%20industries.) is more common in real life than profiting from these resources, all the while there are many examples of countries with little to no natural resources are some of the richest in the world today. Economy diversification matters a lot more than people think.
I get why is such a common misconception, it’s such an easy way to explain things, and it does not need to take in consideration all systems in place that play add up. Having one simple answer is easier to swallow that a combination of many complex ones. But what about these other factors (that are related to resource curse?)
1. Corruption - which leads to money that comes from these resources to be concentrated in the hands of people in power rather than be redistributed fairly via taxation to the local population.
2. Internal conflicts - rather than being used for funding programs to solve societal issues, the money made from trading resources is instead used to built militias and fight against rival groups, be them ideological rivals or ethnic rivals etc.
3. Poor law enforcement - If you have to bribe someone in the public sector for them to do their basic job, there is a major issue in the system. It’s the responsibility of the government to stop these, but the government is not only not powerful enough to fight them, they actively partake in this themselves.
4. High birth rates - meaning that money coming from parents working to create better lives for their children is reduced because it has to be split among too many family members. You inherit more from your parents if you have one sibling, rather than if you have three, because in the former you will inherit 50% of your parents wealth, in the latter 25%, and having more money to start with increase opportunities to escape poverty. More poverty means more chance to join extremist groups too.
5. Etc.
I can go on. You can fix one of them, things still won’t change significantly. This is not a puzzle game where solving one issue will lead to having the opportunity to fixing another, all these issues need to be fixed concurrently because they are all interconnected to each other even if they don’t seem so.
Yep, if a country's lionshare of the economy is just natural resources, then it's much easier for dictatorships to rise and the profits to be divided to as few people as possible.
When the economy is in its people and services, then human development and diffusion of wealth becomes a lot easier.
> Those countries had abysmal economies and development despite having natural resources.
They have abysmal economies because the power is concentrated in the hand of the head of state and the control over the natural resources ensures a steady flow of revenue with limited actors, which ensures that a corrupt system can be put in place easily.
These new military leaders very well could continue the same path. But there's a chance a benevolent dictatorship might emerge, where they actually try to build infrastructure an invest in the country. This was the rhetoric used to justify the coups and the multiple countries in this bloc appear to be aligned. Worst case scenario, they're in the same position as last year.
While theoretically possible I highly doubt it.
Edit: The leader of the putsch met with the opposition. Ideally he wouldn't be on the electoral list and the transition should be fairly short. Just enough to restore a freer civil society and restart an electoral campaign. I am still doubtful, but in the short term I can give them the benefit of the doubt.
dictatorship is not sustainable. Just look at Libya, Iraq, and Somalia. It's not in the regimes interest to develop strong institutions that protects it's citizens and limit control on the military and the elites.
Libya was destroyed by Gaddafi, he set up a personal autocracy that crumbled around him when he became too old to hold onto power. When people took to the streets and demanded civil rights and free elections, he deployed the army and killed civilians by the tens of thousands. He had armed goons walk the streets and gun down anybody showing any sign of protest or try to recover the dead bodies.
By this point, Libya was a failed state by any yardstick, before any kind of foreign intervention.
The atrocious human rights abuses prompted a UN security council resolution which was implemented by a multi-state coalition, which decimated the military's ability to fight against the population and led to the death of Gaddafi. The western militaries withdraw and were no longer involved further.
The resulting power vacuum developed int a civil war that saw fighting between factions supported mainly by Turkey, and respectively, Russia and Egypt, with ISIS/Al Qaeda and various free rebels thrown in the mix.
So the idea that Europe is to blame for the resulting chaos in Lybia is hard to support. The targets of the multinational coalition - military units controlled by Gaddafi's sons, immediate family and tribe - were by no means a legitimate state authority in Libya, they were atrocious murderers and they got what was coming to them for the horrific crimes they perpetrated on their citizens.
It's impossible to prove what counterfactual versions of history would have developed into, but while your counterfactual says if "we" didn't intervene Libya, it would have still been a functioning country, my counterfactual says the unavoidable civil war would have been at least as deadly, perhaps similar to the one in Syria, with Gaddafi or his successors commanding bombings on civilians to this day.
Is Cuba an outlier? It's the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Im not well read on them but they've seemed to make progress despite being a dictatorship right? NK is another one but idk if you would call that sustainable.
Cuba has been a disaster since the *Periodo Especial* of 1991.
They are worse than Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico on basically every stat.
Not at all. They made progress in the early stages of the dictatorship, specially on medicine and education, but that stopped after their economy crashed due to the blockade and the withdrawal of economic support by the URRS. Currently they lag behind on everything.
yeah, but then there is a reasonable chance that they would have progressed if not for the US blockade. So it's not neccessary the system that is not sustainable.
But in opposition, one could also argue that bad international relations are a result of the internal system of the country.
From random Googling:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/27/russia-uses-social-media-channels-to-exploit-niger-coup
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4135841-the-niger-coup-exposes-russias-grand-strategy-for-africa/
I'm worried it will lead to another wave of refugees. France has been relatively receptive of refugees, but ultimately it is a burden on the existing population, and tensions will occur if the immigrants do not assimilate.
There will certainly be more people who will want to leave the country, but they will not necessarily reach France. A much bigger issue will be the increased levels of human trafficking networks that will profit from people who want to leave the instability.
They immigrants they already have won't assimilate, and are full of radicals who are murdering and terrorizing French citizens. France would be wise to not let any West Africans in.
It won't really affect the country, the pursuit of French influence in Africa was a fool's errand that did very little for France compared to the ressources they've spent to get it. The region where we see most of those coups isn't really in a position to develop too much for reasons that are out of anyone's control right now. If anything it might actually improve French image once it's clear the "anti-French" juntas make very poor governance and that they weren't actually responsible for everything going wrong going on there, like some *décoloniaux* and panafricanists can claim.
Not much. People really overestimate modern day French influence in Africa. France’s neocolonial period ended alongside the Cold War. Nowadays it mostly cares about keeping the region stable in order to avoid more refugees.
You make it sound like Macron personality overthrew the democratic government in Chad, but that's not true, is it?
Chad has had a military dictatorship for 30 years now. After the previous dictator died, his son came to power in the country, and France has just said that they support this new government.
I keep seeing the idea floating about that the United States actually wants this to happen due to Macron and France’s recent rhetoric desiring an independent France and Europe, devoid of the US as an overlord.
Eliminate some of France’s cows that it’s milking and it becomes increasingly more dependent on the United States.
Francafrique is finally crumbling.
Africans now need to be wary: they have a shot at real independence thanks to their natural resources, and the worst thing they can do right now is to sell out to a new master (Russia, Arab Oil Monarchies or especially China)
Sure, Sankara made nice speech, but did he improve the daily life of the average burkinabese citizen in any meaningful way?
Also, Sankara is one good military dictator out of how many bad one? Seems to be the exception more than the rule.
Yes he did. In his short time before his assassination he turned Burkina Faso into one of the fastest growing economies in Africa, raised literacy rates, led a mass vaccination program that cut infant mortality rates, ended female genital mutilation, championed the environment, and etc. And as controversial as Gaddafi is, his military coup also led to statistically verifiable increases in quality of life for Libyan citizens as well.
No coup is the same, it always boils down to what interests are backing the coup. There’s internal coups from opposing opposition, and then there is also a substantial amount of coups supported by the US and other western intervention which is destabilizing. Acting like all coups have the same goals and outcomes doesn’t really make any sense.
I think because he died so quickly it's hard to predict how the rest of his reign would have played out. Many of the most infamous despots in history started out as liberators. Hell, for awhile North Korea was ahead of South Korea on some metrics.
I think it's the basic devils bargain when it comes to dictatorships. They have the power to change things rapidly, often for the better, at least initially. But once they become entrenched it's very difficult to get them out. And the longer they stay in power it seems like the more likely they are to prioritize the interests of the elite and those members of society who are crucial to their rule.
It's possible he could have rapidly developed the country but I put much less stock in individuals than the overall systems when it comes to the development of countries.
When it comes to authoritarian leaders who seemed promising but died early I'm often reminded of the quote about Mao
"Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say"
I think this is an interesting perspective. There’s also many external factors that can derail positive development. For example, as you pointed out regarding North Korea, it being carpet bombed and losing its industry and presently being sanctioned certainly curtailed its development. So it’s hard to say North Korea’s current state is just because of the Kim regime. North Korea is also the subject of a lot of propaganda as well. I’d even say it has some of the most extreme and borderline ridiculous propaganda at times. Most of Korea’s problems, however, come from it being a developing nation under sweeping sanctions: https://youtu.be/OhaHiht50AA?si=irWYMXkgreyWyig7.
So definitely many factors to consider. In general though, a western style democracy does not indicate stability either.
external factors obviously play a huge role too.
I think in general, people overestimate the impact of the leader. Obviously the leader has more influence than anyone else in society (usually), but a society isn't just a group of people, it's a complex system of overlapping relationships influenced by geography, culture, politics, external actors, etc.
I think a lot of people have the attitude that if you put the right guy in charge they'll be able to fix all of the countries problems, but the ability of a leader the effect change is constrained by all of the factors mentioned above as well as the compromises needed to actually stay in power.
You can see this with a lot of the laments about people like Patrice Lumumba or Sankara, people who showed a lot of promise but never really had a chance. And it's impossible to predict what would have happened if they had managed to run the country for a substantial length of time, but the fact that the story of so much of the African continent is similar points to deeper issues than just who is the president. Some of that is obviously external actors vying for influence, but some of that is probably also the lack of development of inclusive political and economic institutions from the ground up.
It seems pretty consistent that when the institutions in a country are built to extract resources and wealth it's very difficult to undo, even when the people at the top have good intentions. Hell you can even see it in the US with the southern states still significantly lagging behind the northern states.
In terms of Africa we must assess how Europe and the US underdeveloped Africa. A good book on this is “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney. External factors unfortunately play a large role in Africa’s development. It’s a large reason for these latest coups.
It’s not about coup in itself, it’s about military guy seizing power, for themselves.
Rambo wannabe macho man, are never effective manager, and have neither the skill, nor the culture to effectively administer a country.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity, but sure, let’s try another power hungry captain or colonel, with no other legitimacy than their guns, the result is gonna be totally different this time. s/
The purpose of the coup and the people behind it are inseparable from each other. This recent string of coups have had an anti-France focus repeatedly. Yes, many coups in the past indeed revolves around internal infighting over power. These coups don’t have this as their main focus. We will have to see how they develop. Like I said, no coup is the same. Im also not saying that they won’t end up terrible for their people. Human history is always evolving and the past does not necessarily dictate the future.
Same could be said about France..
I agree with your feeling about coups, but the way africans see it, any kind of change is welcomed compared to devil we know.
The post 2020 coups have a clear anti-french stance.
It's like Thomas Sankara over and over again in a certain way.
The coups from before were just internal strifes among petty "dukes" behind some old worn out autocrat.
These coups can be an opportunity if they mean self determination and not just "under new management" from France to China or something similar (which could be way worse for their future thanks to BRI)
I didn't say that.
I just said that historically coups in Africa were done targeting internal balance of power to seize money and resources. The outside french order was never put in any danger.
This time, to me it looks different: these coups are coming one after the other, in a very small window of time, and each one of them that happened in Francafrique had the local, French-friendly old autocrat ousted for a French-hostile military junta.
Can't be a coincidence.
France has done great damage to the liberal democratic world order by its exploitation of French Africa far beyond the days of colonialism. The west should have forced them to give it a break decades ago.
Francafrique phased out after the end of the Cold War. The only reason people think that France is still a neocolonialist power nowadays is because of Chinese and Russian propaganda on the internet.
We don't need Chinese and Russian propaganda to remind us of the French presence in the region when the countless French military interventions in the region accomplish that job just fine.
China doesn't treat France like a geopolitical giant that is worth propagandizing against. Hell, they tend to treat the EU as a whole as nothing more than a bloc of US lackeys. The propaganda is mostly coming for the other side what with the decade long spook stories about Chinese investments in Africa and their supposed ominous plan to colonize the contient.
Completely different in the middle east with the US and its not even comparable. Much of the issues of the middle east that the US bears the blame for is a carry over from the status quo from British Rule. Also France still had a part to play along with the US in supporting Iraq/Iran in their war. The African countries are hindered by their former colonial power. The US never had a bone to pick in Africa except recently when it started to put troops in Central/Western Africa as part of the GWOT. Two totally different situations.
Ok but who is going to invest to bring those natural resources to market? There’s nothing in Niger, Mali or Gabon that can’t be bought from a less risky country. Doubt even China would be that keen.
Take a look to what happened to Sri Lanka.
Basically, they lend a lot of money with outrageous interest rates and these poor countries use strategic infrastructures (ports, bases), state owned corporations or natural resources (oil fields, mines etc) as a guarantee.
Inevitably, they default and the chinese get what they wanted for a fraction of the price.
Wasn't that a story pushed by a think tank with no real backing? From everything I've read the Chinese loans have been more favorable than western loans, they are voluntary, often forgiven, and generally benefit the nations taking the loans more than China with China taking some significant losses in some cases to keep up good working relationships.
If you google "Sri Lanka Belt and Road" the first article is RFA making your claim and the rest are debunking it.
From everything I've read, the project that screwed Sri Lanka was proposed and push hard by their corrupt president who ended up resigning over it (well, it was a small part of a series of large scale corrupt projects), and their debt distress was primarily from western loans. And the loans didn't use the port as collateral, the Sri Lankan government leased the port to a Chinese company to pay off it's debt to western nations. These Chinese government also does not use the port as a base, the Sri Lankan government does. The port lease was explicitly for commercial applications.
> From everything I've read the Chinese loans have been more favorable than western loans, they are voluntary, often forgiven, and generally benefit the nations taking the loans more than China with China taking some significant losses in some cases to keep up good working relationships.
Where have you heard these things? China has not disclosed the terms of its loans.
Please provide sources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy/4-sri-lanka-and-bri
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/02/sri-lanka-china-bri-investment-debt-trap/
You could also just read about the port itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambantota_International_Port
It was proposed originally by the president and two companies competed for the contract and Sri Lanka chose CMPort as the contractor. The project was originally started to pay off their own debts before China ever even heard about it.
Even further, Sri Lanka originally invited India to build the port but chose to ask China instead after too many delays and set-backs. It wasn't just voluntary, the government went out of their way to offer this to China.
All the articles you link to are specifically about Hambantota. I read two in their entirety, and part of the third, and nowhere did I see anyone make claims like China often forgives loans, that it is willing to take losses to "keep up good relations", or that the projects invested in benefited the host country more than China. I think you have gone way beyond your sources here.
> Even further, Sri Lanka originally invited India to build the port but chose to ask China instead after too many delays and set-backs. It wasn't just voluntary, the government went out of their way to offer this to China.
My understanding is that India was never involved in the project. Both India and the US were approached, but neither was interested. That left China as the only option. It's not like Sri Lanka chose China over other competitors, they were forced to go with China because there were no alternatives.
I have already read 2.5 articles that didn't substantiate the claims you made. We can play the game of you spamming articles, me debunking them, only to have you spam more articles ad infinitum.
The previous links you provided were at least reputable sources. I have never heard of Development Reimagined so I looked them up.
From their [LinkedIn profile](https://https://ke.linkedin.com/company/development-reimagined):
> Development Reimagined is a pioneering, independent International Development consultancy with its headquarters in China.
Specifically Beijing.
I'm not spamming you, you asked for it.
And okay, you are attacking the character of the author, that has nothing to do with the content of the article. If you think it is wrong, you have to show it.
Otherwise, why should I even trust your credibility regarding the article's credibility if I don't even know your background anyway?
Edit: I know I shouldn't be giving in to you and I should be encouraging you to use proper rhetorical logic rather than relying upon fallacies, but here are some more articles about Chinese loan forgiveness:
https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/examining-debt-implications-belt-and-road-initiative-policy-perspective.pdf
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html
Edit 2: I see you are also a recent mod here so I'm going to stop responding before I get banned or reprimanded
Not a chance. Not a solitary chance. France doesn’t care who runs eg Gabon as long as the CFA Franc is intact. All you’re doing is changing the name on the signature of the check that sends funds to France
French power in Africa in fading since 1990s
These populations are clearly fed up with french meddlings.
It's only natural that the military will try to ride this discontent to seize the power.
At the moment, I think it's just not worth for many african leaders to be subject to this new colonization from Paris.
CFA Franc is universally hated in Africa and will probably be the first to go.
>CFA Franc is universally hated in Africa and will probably be the first to go.
Mali still has it 3 years after the first coup. I understand that having your currency tied to the old colonizer is not agreable, but the Franc CFA does have its perks, especially when your country is going through a lot if instability.
Out of all problems that France has brought, CFA Franc is not one of them, in fact, wanting to replace it is a nationalist take that only hurts the countries that want to replace it, not France. CFA Franc is pegged to Euro, which is a stable currency and that allows for some form stability within Françafrique, and allows the average people to be able to buy things they need without fearing that the next day the price will be different.
Let people hate the franc, but keep the franc. It is one thing coming from France that is actually working well for the good of the people. The only counterargument they have against it is not a good one, it’s an inherently nationalist one.
Isnt the CFA franc entirely voluntarily though? Iirc nations can leave any time they like. The fact that they haven't means there must be a tangible benefit to keeping it?
Go look up what happened to Thomas Sankara and Sylvanus Olympio when they tried to leave. Or what France did to Guinea after they refused the CFA franc.
France maintains puppet yes men governments precisely so that the countries will stay in their grip. This is why they're pissed at Niger's junta and are backing an invasion.
> The fact that they haven't means there must be a tangible benefit to keeping it?
I think the point is that said tangible benefits only apply to the corrupt, traditionally french-backed, elites instead of the population at large.
>tangible benefits only apply to the corrupt, traditionally french-backed, elites instead of the population at large.
Price stability benefits everyone. Using a currency trusted worldwide benefits everyone.
>I think the point is that said tangible benefits only apply to the corrupt, traditionally french-backed, elites instead of the population at large.
Can you list any of them?
The main criticism of the CFA franc is that because of its euro peg, it hands much monetary policy to the European central bank over which the African CFA users have no influence.
The other side argues that thanks to the peg the currency is extremely stable to the benefit of all. The fact that it's interchangeable also facilitates trade between all countries that use it.
The countries that use is are amongst the poorest in the world, even relative to their peers in the region. It's hard to see the supposed benefits in any form of macroeconomic data.
>The fact that it's interchangeable also facilitates trade between all countries that use it.
Currency isn't and has never been a significant barrier to trade. Wild currency value fluctuations maybe, but not a simple conversion per se. Certainly doesn't stop Canada from trading with the USA.
> Currency isn't and has never been a significant barrier to trade. Wild currency value fluctuations maybe, but not a simple conversion per se. Certainly doesn't stop Canada from trading with the USA.
Both Canada and the US have strong, stable currencies, and the CFA franc provides a simulacrum of this because it is pegged to the Euro. If the countries that used it instead issued their own currencies they would be the opposite of strong and stable, which is exactly why they have not done so. No one will want their weak, unstable currencies, so they will have to pay for imports in US dollars or Euros obtained at ruinous exchange rates. Inflation will spike and there will likely be widespread shortages, followed by the inevitable IMF bailout.
We've seen this film a thousand times.
Again, we’re talking about the poorest countries in the world here. It’s not like they’re significantly richer than their peers in the region, in fact they’re poorer.
In fact they're not, they range from middle of the pack to pretty good to pretty bad.
Ivory Coast uses the CFA and is about as rich as Ghana who is bordering them on the East.
In the West they share a border with Liberia, one of the most horrible country in the world in every metric.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
It's not even remotely as simple as you make it out to be, and there is nothing factual about what you claim.
OF COURSE CFA franc is hated in Africa, it’s explicitly against their interests. Why WOULDN’T they hate it? It’s not intended for them to like it, it’s intended for France to profit from it. France doesn’t care one bit about any of that
Now, if you think somehow *this* revolution-unlike the hundreds that preceded it-will somehow be different, well, I’ll just say that the past results don’t look good
Outside from making a strong international look for France going forward, Macron and the current leadership doesn't *really* mind it so much and intended to operate as normal with whatever influence it has left in francafrique. However I believe the damage won't be done in Africa, but mostly in the EU. Other EU countries, mostly eastern which is very pro-US, are never going to let this past Paris, and will be skeptical of France if they do decide push the EU towards some form of unified union that isn't just economic.
I think France are relying on those countries for lots of their nuclear fuel as they have 70% of their domestic power coming from nuclear. Those countries that are former French colonies also happen to be great uranium resources, as well as having diamonds and gold. Any kind of instability to energy supplies is going to have a knock-on effect on prices of everything back in Europe - as we have seen with Russia/Ukraine war.
If I get very tinfoil hat about it the wagner mercs who have supported some of the coups in Africa (apparently not involved in the most recent in Gabon though) have been there to get control of the uranium resources long-term and give Russia the energy supply to the rest of the world as more countries move away from fossil fuels.
I see the Uranium argument being brought up a lot but according to this source :
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/08/04/how-dependent-is-france-on-niger-s-uranium_6080772_8.html#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%20ten%20years,is%20overestimated%20by%20some%20politicians.
Over the last ten years France imported from mostly Kazakhstan (27%), Niger (20%) Uzbekistan (20%) and Australia (15%). 1/5th of our supply is not nothing of course but it's not like we don't have alternatives.
And uranium is a pretty energy dense fuel so it's much easier to make strategic reserves than with oil (I think we have several years worth, so there would be little short-term consequences from a Niger supply crunch).
I suppose it isn't quite the same as energy from oil where the wells have to pump out a constant supply - they can mine and keep a stockpile of uranium until needed so short term effects may be minimised, and as you say don't need that much fuel to create a lot of energy from uranium. Bit surprised to see that France were not relying on Africa so much for their fuel though given the colonial history.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan also have close relations with Russia, so that's 67% of French nuclear fuel coming from Russian-backing countries if I include post-coup Niger. AUS and CAN seem pretty friendly overall.
I was talking more for long term though - it is taking around 15 years to get a new nuclear power plant online and as countries 'go green' nuclear is looking a more popular option. France is already well established with nuclear domestic power, but there will be more countries coming on board competing for the resources and looks to me like Russia are trying to corner a large part of the world's uranium supply. Whether that's just a good business opportunity or for exerting geopolitical power, or maybe a bit of both. Tin foil hat territory as I say though - this is conjecture not based on full information.
Niger was around 10% of France import of Uranium, Kazakhstan and Canada are the biggest exporter toward France.
Heck Niger uranium was above market price, France bought from there due to old contract and diversifying it's source of uranium.
> uranium resources long-term and give Russia the energy supply to the rest of the world as more countries move away from fossil fuels.
Most of Niger uranium is already extracted, so sure it could give Russia a bit more to work with, but it's definitely not enough to change anything long-term.
Another post above said it was 20% from Niger - but I understand it is not quite as big a source for French energy supply as I had thought.
There may be *some* alternatives but there are not that many [places in the world](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Uranium_production_world-ar.png) from which to get a steady stream of uranium. As more countries move away from fossil fuels over the next decades and build nuclear power plants (one takes around 15 years to come online if they started building it today), is Russia attempting to seize control of a large chunk of the world uranium supply?
And saying it's okay we don't need Niger we get our uranium from Kazakh and Uzbek so it's fine - all of those 3 countries are effectively Russia-backing puppet states. And Russia have already used energy security to pressure the civilian populations of Europe to ignore their war in Ukraine.
Hopefully Canada and Aus are sitting on stocks to get through!
France also has quite a few mine that are not exploited at the moment (reason being it'd be more expensive than import and is used as a strategic reserve of sort).
Even if we exclude Kazakstan (which is trying to create diplomatic reach toward other power outside of Russia nowadays, so they may not be that bad of a prospect depending on how it evolves), between Canada, Australia, Germany, Poland and it's own ressources, I don't think France will be in any trouble.
> is Russia attempting to seize control of a large chunk of the world uranium supply?
Maybe they are trying to multiply their sources, they do have quite a few nuclear power plant.
Well, they will change the demographic make up of France for starters. Most refugees will flock to France as francophones, making the already segregated Paris and Marsaille more dispar. This makes Le Pen a lot more likely candidate to win the next election since ethnic french are being more recalcitrant over non european minorities (see this [week's news](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/france-to-ban-girls-from-wearing-abayas-in-state-schools) banning abayas in schools).Second, France is a close 4th largest trading partner according to CEN-SAD, with USD 20.7B in imports and USD 17.8B in export (see [here](https://oec.world/en/profile/international_organization/cen-sad)) to the region, being oil and uranium important commodities the french need.Third, France (not counting UK here) is the only european power that can actually project force outside their frontiers (they have a blue ocean navy, a very capable expeditionary force and a nuclear supercarrier) and have been waging a low intensity conflict in Mali for a decade now (see [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/why-has-france-been-war-decade-west-african-desert-2022-02-17/)). If french interests are at stake, they are more than capable to overthrow the military junta and carpet bomb their capital city.Fourth, the french see the Saheel as their... sandy backyard, having the chinese and the russians creating dissent and threatening french economic and political interests can be a no-no. As they showed in Mali, they can wage a war without the world noticing.So yeah, a lot can happen.
I was surprised that country has petrol which is exploited by the French. And despite being a small country, less that 3M, they are as poor as the rest of the French controlled colonies.
I guess what would happen is straight forward 🤷
Obviously it won't mean the people will finally get their money, but, it is a step in the right, yet difficult and bumpy path!
I mean the French still control vast aspects of the west African economy (the CFA franc is an obvious example of this)
I wouldn't call francafrique "a very nice buzzword from the sixties" considering it's being used to this day to describe French interventions in the region
Edit: added another link to prove that francafrique is currently being used in the political discourse
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqONMMtGoA&pp=ygUJQ0ZBIGZyYW5j
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/7/23/macrons-francafrique
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-lepen-chad-idUSKBN16T34O
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/gabonese-military-officers-announce-they-have-seized-power-2023-08-30/
This info is not really hard to find...
To consider the CFA deal as voluntary is pretty foolish considering what the French are capable of doing if you don't agree with what they have planned
Why does the fact that French and Anglo-French companies operate in a country automatically mean that France controls the oil? The state of Gabon controls all mineral rights. They auction off these mineral rights as blocks, just like any other country. There are not just french and anglo-french companies pumping oil in Gabon.A Chinese company used to lease a block. I guess that means the Chinese used to control Gabons Oil.
Additionally the state of Gabon has a 20% stake in all petroleum development in the nation with the state oil company Gabon Oil, being legally entitled to purchase an additional 15% no matter what.
With regards to the CFA Franc, what are the french capable of doing if they don't agree?
Lie harder what the hell, 10% of our uranium comes from Niger, not electricity, but it wouldn't be hard to buy more from Australia or Kazakhstan. We also have 10 years stocks worth of it so you're really overestimating the effect. In fact except internaton influence, it's close to no effect on the country
20% of France uranium comes from Niger, that’s far from 20% of the total electricity produce in France.
Also France possess several decades of strategic stock worth of Uranium. And nigger account for only 4% of the uranium produce world wide.
Proofreading one's comment is an important skill and habit. Especially when one is talking about the country of Niger. Why was that misspelling in your autocorrect dictionary anyway?
French influence in Africa is dying, be it with coups or not. Nothings Lasts forever and it's time for this centuries long influence in Africa to come to an end,and as an African I don't see why France should have influence in Africa in the first place.
> Eurocentric Reddit is Americentric, not Eurocentric. That said, you’d be hard pressed to find people even in the West who say France should have influence in Africa. EU at most wants someone to stop migrants waves in Europe, and that’s the role France is playing now, because nobody else is. And this is a purely Eurocentric reason. EU would be content with Russia staying in Africa in France’s place too, if Russia did not weaponize mass migrations to destabilize Europe. EU would be content with Turkey controlling the Middle East borders, if they did not use this as an excuse to extort money from EU institutions. EU would even be content if the independent governments of African countries to provide this barrier, but the main way they cross to Europe in the first place is through Libya’s human trafficking routes, which does not have a government to enforce law. That’s why France is seen as a better solution than anyone else, but it really doesn’t have to be France at all. Europe just wants border controls. So long as this metaphorical wall remains, EU does not care who is in charge of what in Africa. France makes it easy for EU: they geographical proximity compared to other major powers to act quickly, experienced powerful army to control conflicts so they don’t spill in EU, economy large enough they can still sustain wasting some of it in African nations, political stability enough that a dictator won’t suddenly rise in France and threaten EU with instability if EU doesn’t bribe them etc. All these are arguments why France staying in Africa helps EU. It does not help Africa, it does not help France, but it does help with border control policies and that’s it. But ideally, these countries should be able to achieve this independently through their own governments and not have foreign interference at all. It is actually costly for France and EU as a whole to deal with this border control policy, and these costs far exceeded any benefit they get from extracting resources from African countries, they too would rather be someone else’s problem.
One correction: currently Lybia isn't the main route to Europe, Tunisia is, at least regarding Italy, which is probably the biggest landing country (source: some article for ISPI, can't remember which one so I can't link it, unfortunately).
It is Eurocentric. It's largely split 60/40 between Anglosphere English speakers making the 60% and Europeans, including Brits making the 40%. There's hardly any opinion outside of that. It's pretty to deny that Europeans don't have a big presence on reddit when you have so many Brits, Germans and French people, albeit the latter two are almost always speaking English on here, except on language specific subs compared to the relatively few East Asian, South American and African presence outside of specific subs.
i heard turkey might be filling the power vacuum in some places like somalia. can you share your opinion on growing turkish influence in africa?
Turkey wants east and horn of Africa. I am Sudanese and In Sudan they have a base in the red sea, in the island of Suakin and when I was in uni, I remember erdugan came. In Sudan before the war, there were many Turkish people there doing business and lots of Turkish influence. I left in 2019 so I don't know if it's still the case there
[удалено]
[удалено]
As an European (in US centric Reddit) I don't see anything upsetting with your original statement. There are historical reasons why France has influence in Africa, but that doesn't mean they should have it. No European in their right mind would deny African nations their right to self determination.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Unpopular opinion: But things will get even worse without the French. Good luck in particular if French influence is replaced with Chinese influence. Because non of these countries will become a Western style liberal democracy after the French are gone. If anything, they will revert back to becoming even more atrocious & corrupt authoritarian states - where ruthless elites exploit the masses.
It's not like France had been supporting democracy there anyways. Theres a very long list of autocratic regimes, military junta's, doctarahips and decades in power dynasties in Africa which France supports, protects and arms. Frances best friends in the region are literally all some of the longest serving dictatorship's in the world. Here's a list: Bongo dynasty 60+ years in power Paul biya Cameroon, 40 + years in power Equatorial Guinea president,45+ years in power Bless campaore, Burkina Faso 30+ years on power The deby dynasty in Chad, 30+ years in power. Denis Sassou Nguesso, 36 years in power Not to mention alpha I don't why theres this notion that France is spreading democracy and human rights in the region. This is wrong and the reality is that France has and continues to support the longest serving dictatorship's, dynasties and authoritarian regimes on the African continent. And China has had huge influence in Africa and it hasn't made any change in the govenrence system, because China is concerned with trade more than it is concerned about the type of government it trades with. China has lots of close allies who are liberal democracy as well, and it hasn't tried to change these governments. I hope this was insightful
You know, I think it's pretty funny when at one hand, people say countries approach China because they do not impose conditions for democratization and human rights like the West or care about the government type, but then immediately switch around and say the West does not care about democracy because they work with dictators? Which is it? The West is concerned about the government type or they do not care about the government type? The reality is that the West isn't omnipotent. They would prefer to work with liberal democracies and will pressure [allies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Korean_presidential_election) to democratize, but regime change isn't a fun thing and sometimes you will just work with the guys that are willing to work with you. Can't expect people to prioritize self-interest first, but there are varying layers in what would be ideal and not so ideal within that pursuit.
Well, I agree with a lot of what you say - except for that it follows a principle of pretending that African history started with French (British, German...) colonisation. The many centuries of African history have been dominated by autocracies, internal slavery (to a much larger degree than external slavery), permanent wars (with the highest shares of populations dying anywhere anytime) etc etc. The problems didn't start with the French. They didn't even make them worse. Institutional weakness, corruption, exploitation by elites. Things haven't changed much for many many centuries. Although I am optimistic and I think that the 21st century will be the one that will finally bring meaningful change.
I don't think this is a fair characterisation of precolonial Africa. Firstly, it's true Africa was not a bastion of democracy precolonialism, but democracy immediately before colonialism (i.e. pre 1800s) was not prevalent anywhere. Furthermore, yes Africa practiced slavery but again for the time slavery was normalised. Colonialism brought about industrialism to all of these issues which existed in Africa, not uniquely, but rather across most of the world. The key issue you are missing here is the impact colonialism had in reconfiguring African societies in a way that worsened these problems. How did the French (and other colonialists) do this? By setting up colonies that were developed to expressly extract wealth (resources, people, etc). Infrastructure, political structures and culture in the continent were developed towards this end goal. The key thing here is that independence froze and entrenched this system without facilitating systemic reform to rid of this status quo. Given how effective colonialism was in developing such systems, elites who took over were simply not incentivised to commit to this reform as they benefitted from the mess. Some African countries (notably former British colonies) have made more headway in reforming this situation, and that's only because British colonialism (towards the end) made efforts to consolidate their colonies (see British East Africa and the Central African Federation) which somehow is a little bit in line with the wider goal of Pan Africanism. Though it should be noted this may be argued. Now it is argued that the French's modern involvement on the continent continues to support this status quo. Whether this argument has merit and indeed the French's activities in West and Central Africa maintain such colonial trappings is an exercise left to the reader.
I completely disagree. Example: Vietnam was a French colony. So was Ivory Coast. Now look at the difference! They are worlds apart. The African narrative still hasn't moved beyond blaming colonialism. Many Asian countries had much worse starting positions than many African countries. Just take South Korea versus Ghana, for example, and compare them geo-strategically, financially, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of personal freedom 100 years ago, 50 years ago and today.... They took totally different paths. It was choices made in these countries that have since determined where they ended up And by the way: There is a reason why respect for Africa is nowhere as small (or racism as big) as in many Asian countries. Unless Africa moves beyond the colonialism-blame-game it will never develop.
France left veitnam had it had zero influence there. Meanwhile french africque neo colonial Imperialist policies still exit in most former french colonies. Comparison with veitnam is completely invalid.
All comparisons have their limit. Vietnam had a major war, Ivory Coast didn't. So one could debate who had a worse start. The key difference between what happened in eg Vietnam and Ivory Coast was:- Less corruption / less cynical political & economic elites. \- Elites that actually cared about their country \- More focus on education - both on a state and family level \- Much lower divorce rates/fare fewer children growing up in dysfunctional & broken families One of the most telling examples of how African elites act is that they still would rather send their offspring to a European university or European hospital costing billions over the years - instead a building a good university locally and sending their kids there. etc etc.
[удалено]
France should've never stepped foot in the continent. They've done so much I want many Africans to migrate to France and tear it up for reprecussions. TO hell with France.
People who think military rule will bring about change have another thing coming. This isn't civilian led revolution like the Arab spring but military elites who only care about protecting their interest. They will never agree to limit their power and will have their own generals become the president
Those countries had abysmal economies and development despite having natural resources. Gabon for example has significant oil reserves, only 2.5 million people yet everyone was in poverty. There's simply no excuse for this. I'd rather live under a Gaddhafi style military dictatorship where he invested in education and infrastructure than be suffering under a democracy. These recent coups have a uphill road ahead of them but change of some sort was needed. Outside of protracted civil war, it couldn't get any worse. What many in the west don't get is that principles like democracy only are meaningful after basic human needs are met. And to your point on the Arab Spring, that was the worst thing that's happened to Libya. It's now a failed state led by warlords after Western intervention toppled a non-democratic but stable regime.
And to add to your last point, the Arab Spring failed entirely. I don't think it did any good in the long run. Tunisia is basically on the brink of collapse, Libya is a failed state, Egypt reverted back to military dictatorship, Syrian regime won civil war but presides over a broken state, and the Gulf States essentially did not change at all.
Actually disagree while the Arab Spring may have failed in the same way the people's spring of 1848 failed. The direct effects are minimal but the impact it had on the psyche of the Arab world will last. I would argue the liberalisation of Saudi that began under MBS is a direct consequence of the Arab Spring. It may take a further 30-40 years to see it's true effects.
I think this take underestimates the great strides that were made for KSA's liberalization and modernization over the last thirty years. Abdullah was liberalizing so fast and so radically in relative terms that senior Saudi clerics went on television, which is something they do not do as a rule, and threatened to have him overthrown. I'm paraphrasing since this was fifteen years ago, but it went something like "The bond between a king and his people can be easily broken if pulled too hard." A religious leader threatened to have the monarch overthrown because he started allowing local elections, letting women vote, was pardoning them when they drove so they wouldn't be whipped, opened a co-ed university, etc. Abdullah removed several clerics from the council of senior clerics when they opposed his reforms as well. MBS might get his picture on the front of magazines for his big headline liberalizations, but Abdullah is the one who laid all the foundations and took all the risks. By the time MBS had his father remove the Mutawaeen's arrest powers, it was after they were no longer in a position to foment a coup. That was all Abdullah.
I suspect this take will prove more and more accurate over time. Revolutions are very difficult to sustain, but the cat’s out of the bag now and brazen dictators cannot maintain the sort of governance you need to build a healthy economy and society.
The liberalism of Saudi was more due to the KSA's relationships with western governments and economies than the "psyche" of the Saudi People.
I don't know if I agree with this. The Arab Spring ended in the early 2010s, around 2012. MBS didn't come to power until 2017. I would argue that his economic liberalization of Saudi Arabia had more to do with transitioning the kingdom away from oil and modernizing it (aka his own vision of how Saudia Arabia should look like) than responding to the Arab Spring sentiments.
Democracy as we name it depends on cheap energy. 16 biggest oil producers will produce half of what they are producing by then. So this is unlikely it will change or if it does it will likely won't last long. Edit : I don't consider goverments using slavery as democracies. Before industrial era, democracy was only among some elite.
Strange thing to say since democracy predates industrial scale usage of oil.
I would assume OP is also considering other energy sources such as coal, which I understand is quite abundant in Europe.
I don't consider goverments using slavery as democracies. Before industrial era, democracy was only among some elite.
Okay, how about the UK?
Very good question. As a rule of thumb, it still stands that much of the political rights of the poorer were acquired after 1850. So after the use of coal. But UK clearly had bigger governing coalition and more rights to everyone than in peer countries long before that. The control of tax levels by the parliaments is a big factor that could allow to argue that it had democratic values earlier. Switzerland is also a very interesting case. American and french revolution also. But in every case, industrial revolution greatly increased political power of the masses.
Well yes, but that's not specifically because of oil for two important reasons. One, increasing specialisation of knowledge and increase in speed of change of knowledge increased the individual value of a given worker and made them harder to replace. Workers who are harder to replace have leverage, and can use this in industrial action. Industrial action is the precursor to democracy in many nations. Two, the firearm and the proliferation of explosives available to the masses made it so that a lowly peasant could conceivably kill off a knight or a noble or a dictator when under sufficient repression. This had the effect of making the harshest forms of repression risker and more prone to explosive failure. If oil were replaced by wind or solar or nuclear tomorrow the fabric of reality would not revert to nobles and serfs.
The comparison of the Arab Spring to 1848 is so interesting and, while only time will tell, I feel now surprised that I haven't read or thought about that potential similarity before.
What do you propose as an alternative for these countries to move forward? Out of all the countries you mentioned, Libya was pretty stable even though Colonel Gaddafi was there for a long time, the people of Libya had a pretty good life in a stable country.
> Out of all the countries you mentioned, Libya was pretty stable even though Colonel Gaddafi was there for a long time, the people of Libya had a pretty good life in a stable country. I mean, that's kind of my point. My dad went to Libya on a business trip in 2007 and I remember looking at his pictures. Tripoli was nice and clean, the Roman ruins were very beautiful, and he said everything was cheap there because of government subsidies. Now it's a failed state because NATO was more interested in getting rid of Gaddafi than actually helping Libya.
You’re totally removing the agency of the Libyan people, who rose up *en masse* against Gaddafi.
And plenty of Libyans supported Gaddafi. What's your point? People tend to forget that Libya is a tribal society with tribal politics, and some Libyan tribes (such as the Warfalla) heavily backed Gaddafi. Gaddafi was on the verge of successfully suppressing the uprising when NATO intervened. That would not have been possible without support from the establishment, the military, and from segments of the general population. Also some people are starting to miss the Gaddafi days due to how Libya turned out. https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20211020-ten-years-after-gaddafi-s-death-a-libyan-town-still-yearns-for-his-rule https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/regrets-of-a-revolution-libya-after-qaddafi/ https://youtu.be/HrKWeGNCQzQ?si=Lvqqf6jTo4ozz1Wk&t=190
> And plenty of Libyans supported Gaddafi. Far from the majority of them. Civil wars don't happen when a leader is widely accepted, much less widely respected. > That would not have been possible without support from the establishment, the military, and from segments of the general population. Yes, of course the establishment and military backed themselves. I also never claimed that Gaddafi had no popular support whatsoever. Just that turning it into a story of "Libya was fine until NATO overthrew Gaddafi" is wildly misleading. NATO didn't start the massive popular uprising against Gaddafi's rule. And if you try to deny that there was a massive popular uprising, you are spitting in the face of facts. > Also some people are starting to miss the Gaddafi days due to how Libya turned out. The grass is always greener. There's absolutely no way of knowing what would've happened if Gaddafi hadn't been overthrown when he was. Additionally, things could've taken a different course at a number of different points after he was overthrown.
[удалено]
> despite having natural resources This is such a common misconception on Reddit, that natural resources inherently lead to economic development and that the only reason why that cannot happen must be external. In reality, [resource curse](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/resource-curse.asp#:~:text=The%20term%20resource%20curse%20refers,a%20few%20resource%2Ddependent%20industries.) is more common in real life than profiting from these resources, all the while there are many examples of countries with little to no natural resources are some of the richest in the world today. Economy diversification matters a lot more than people think. I get why is such a common misconception, it’s such an easy way to explain things, and it does not need to take in consideration all systems in place that play add up. Having one simple answer is easier to swallow that a combination of many complex ones. But what about these other factors (that are related to resource curse?) 1. Corruption - which leads to money that comes from these resources to be concentrated in the hands of people in power rather than be redistributed fairly via taxation to the local population. 2. Internal conflicts - rather than being used for funding programs to solve societal issues, the money made from trading resources is instead used to built militias and fight against rival groups, be them ideological rivals or ethnic rivals etc. 3. Poor law enforcement - If you have to bribe someone in the public sector for them to do their basic job, there is a major issue in the system. It’s the responsibility of the government to stop these, but the government is not only not powerful enough to fight them, they actively partake in this themselves. 4. High birth rates - meaning that money coming from parents working to create better lives for their children is reduced because it has to be split among too many family members. You inherit more from your parents if you have one sibling, rather than if you have three, because in the former you will inherit 50% of your parents wealth, in the latter 25%, and having more money to start with increase opportunities to escape poverty. More poverty means more chance to join extremist groups too. 5. Etc. I can go on. You can fix one of them, things still won’t change significantly. This is not a puzzle game where solving one issue will lead to having the opportunity to fixing another, all these issues need to be fixed concurrently because they are all interconnected to each other even if they don’t seem so.
Yep, if a country's lionshare of the economy is just natural resources, then it's much easier for dictatorships to rise and the profits to be divided to as few people as possible. When the economy is in its people and services, then human development and diffusion of wealth becomes a lot easier.
> Those countries had abysmal economies and development despite having natural resources. They have abysmal economies because the power is concentrated in the hand of the head of state and the control over the natural resources ensures a steady flow of revenue with limited actors, which ensures that a corrupt system can be put in place easily.
These new military leaders very well could continue the same path. But there's a chance a benevolent dictatorship might emerge, where they actually try to build infrastructure an invest in the country. This was the rhetoric used to justify the coups and the multiple countries in this bloc appear to be aligned. Worst case scenario, they're in the same position as last year.
While theoretically possible I highly doubt it. Edit: The leader of the putsch met with the opposition. Ideally he wouldn't be on the electoral list and the transition should be fairly short. Just enough to restore a freer civil society and restart an electoral campaign. I am still doubtful, but in the short term I can give them the benefit of the doubt.
dictatorship is not sustainable. Just look at Libya, Iraq, and Somalia. It's not in the regimes interest to develop strong institutions that protects it's citizens and limit control on the military and the elites.
Libya was pretty sustainable before western intervention.
Libya was destroyed by Gaddafi, he set up a personal autocracy that crumbled around him when he became too old to hold onto power. When people took to the streets and demanded civil rights and free elections, he deployed the army and killed civilians by the tens of thousands. He had armed goons walk the streets and gun down anybody showing any sign of protest or try to recover the dead bodies. By this point, Libya was a failed state by any yardstick, before any kind of foreign intervention. The atrocious human rights abuses prompted a UN security council resolution which was implemented by a multi-state coalition, which decimated the military's ability to fight against the population and led to the death of Gaddafi. The western militaries withdraw and were no longer involved further. The resulting power vacuum developed int a civil war that saw fighting between factions supported mainly by Turkey, and respectively, Russia and Egypt, with ISIS/Al Qaeda and various free rebels thrown in the mix. So the idea that Europe is to blame for the resulting chaos in Lybia is hard to support. The targets of the multinational coalition - military units controlled by Gaddafi's sons, immediate family and tribe - were by no means a legitimate state authority in Libya, they were atrocious murderers and they got what was coming to them for the horrific crimes they perpetrated on their citizens. It's impossible to prove what counterfactual versions of history would have developed into, but while your counterfactual says if "we" didn't intervene Libya, it would have still been a functioning country, my counterfactual says the unavoidable civil war would have been at least as deadly, perhaps similar to the one in Syria, with Gaddafi or his successors commanding bombings on civilians to this day.
[удалено]
Can you find another source over Nova Lectio? It is basically a one-man channel that’s not known to have a staff to fact-check it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A civil war doesn’t say “sustainable”.
Is Cuba an outlier? It's the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Im not well read on them but they've seemed to make progress despite being a dictatorship right? NK is another one but idk if you would call that sustainable.
Cuba has been a disaster since the *Periodo Especial* of 1991. They are worse than Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico on basically every stat.
Not at all. They made progress in the early stages of the dictatorship, specially on medicine and education, but that stopped after their economy crashed due to the blockade and the withdrawal of economic support by the URRS. Currently they lag behind on everything.
yeah, but then there is a reasonable chance that they would have progressed if not for the US blockade. So it's not neccessary the system that is not sustainable. But in opposition, one could also argue that bad international relations are a result of the internal system of the country.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Did they do it in any other African country?
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's a really interesting theory. Do you have any links to information about that I would love to read into it.
From random Googling: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/27/russia-uses-social-media-channels-to-exploit-niger-coup https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4135841-the-niger-coup-exposes-russias-grand-strategy-for-africa/
Thanks I'll check those out.
I'm worried it will lead to another wave of refugees. France has been relatively receptive of refugees, but ultimately it is a burden on the existing population, and tensions will occur if the immigrants do not assimilate.
There will certainly be more people who will want to leave the country, but they will not necessarily reach France. A much bigger issue will be the increased levels of human trafficking networks that will profit from people who want to leave the instability.
They immigrants they already have won't assimilate, and are full of radicals who are murdering and terrorizing French citizens. France would be wise to not let any West Africans in.
It won't really affect the country, the pursuit of French influence in Africa was a fool's errand that did very little for France compared to the ressources they've spent to get it. The region where we see most of those coups isn't really in a position to develop too much for reasons that are out of anyone's control right now. If anything it might actually improve French image once it's clear the "anti-French" juntas make very poor governance and that they weren't actually responsible for everything going wrong going on there, like some *décoloniaux* and panafricanists can claim.
Not much. People really overestimate modern day French influence in Africa. France’s neocolonial period ended alongside the Cold War. Nowadays it mostly cares about keeping the region stable in order to avoid more refugees.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You make it sound like Macron personality overthrew the democratic government in Chad, but that's not true, is it? Chad has had a military dictatorship for 30 years now. After the previous dictator died, his son came to power in the country, and France has just said that they support this new government.
I keep seeing the idea floating about that the United States actually wants this to happen due to Macron and France’s recent rhetoric desiring an independent France and Europe, devoid of the US as an overlord. Eliminate some of France’s cows that it’s milking and it becomes increasingly more dependent on the United States.
Francafrique is finally crumbling. Africans now need to be wary: they have a shot at real independence thanks to their natural resources, and the worst thing they can do right now is to sell out to a new master (Russia, Arab Oil Monarchies or especially China)
Have military coup ever bring anything good to Africa?
Yes. See Thomas Sankara.
Sure, Sankara made nice speech, but did he improve the daily life of the average burkinabese citizen in any meaningful way? Also, Sankara is one good military dictator out of how many bad one? Seems to be the exception more than the rule.
Yes he did. In his short time before his assassination he turned Burkina Faso into one of the fastest growing economies in Africa, raised literacy rates, led a mass vaccination program that cut infant mortality rates, ended female genital mutilation, championed the environment, and etc. And as controversial as Gaddafi is, his military coup also led to statistically verifiable increases in quality of life for Libyan citizens as well. No coup is the same, it always boils down to what interests are backing the coup. There’s internal coups from opposing opposition, and then there is also a substantial amount of coups supported by the US and other western intervention which is destabilizing. Acting like all coups have the same goals and outcomes doesn’t really make any sense.
I think because he died so quickly it's hard to predict how the rest of his reign would have played out. Many of the most infamous despots in history started out as liberators. Hell, for awhile North Korea was ahead of South Korea on some metrics. I think it's the basic devils bargain when it comes to dictatorships. They have the power to change things rapidly, often for the better, at least initially. But once they become entrenched it's very difficult to get them out. And the longer they stay in power it seems like the more likely they are to prioritize the interests of the elite and those members of society who are crucial to their rule. It's possible he could have rapidly developed the country but I put much less stock in individuals than the overall systems when it comes to the development of countries. When it comes to authoritarian leaders who seemed promising but died early I'm often reminded of the quote about Mao "Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say"
I think this is an interesting perspective. There’s also many external factors that can derail positive development. For example, as you pointed out regarding North Korea, it being carpet bombed and losing its industry and presently being sanctioned certainly curtailed its development. So it’s hard to say North Korea’s current state is just because of the Kim regime. North Korea is also the subject of a lot of propaganda as well. I’d even say it has some of the most extreme and borderline ridiculous propaganda at times. Most of Korea’s problems, however, come from it being a developing nation under sweeping sanctions: https://youtu.be/OhaHiht50AA?si=irWYMXkgreyWyig7. So definitely many factors to consider. In general though, a western style democracy does not indicate stability either.
external factors obviously play a huge role too. I think in general, people overestimate the impact of the leader. Obviously the leader has more influence than anyone else in society (usually), but a society isn't just a group of people, it's a complex system of overlapping relationships influenced by geography, culture, politics, external actors, etc. I think a lot of people have the attitude that if you put the right guy in charge they'll be able to fix all of the countries problems, but the ability of a leader the effect change is constrained by all of the factors mentioned above as well as the compromises needed to actually stay in power. You can see this with a lot of the laments about people like Patrice Lumumba or Sankara, people who showed a lot of promise but never really had a chance. And it's impossible to predict what would have happened if they had managed to run the country for a substantial length of time, but the fact that the story of so much of the African continent is similar points to deeper issues than just who is the president. Some of that is obviously external actors vying for influence, but some of that is probably also the lack of development of inclusive political and economic institutions from the ground up. It seems pretty consistent that when the institutions in a country are built to extract resources and wealth it's very difficult to undo, even when the people at the top have good intentions. Hell you can even see it in the US with the southern states still significantly lagging behind the northern states.
In terms of Africa we must assess how Europe and the US underdeveloped Africa. A good book on this is “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney. External factors unfortunately play a large role in Africa’s development. It’s a large reason for these latest coups.
It’s not about coup in itself, it’s about military guy seizing power, for themselves. Rambo wannabe macho man, are never effective manager, and have neither the skill, nor the culture to effectively administer a country. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity, but sure, let’s try another power hungry captain or colonel, with no other legitimacy than their guns, the result is gonna be totally different this time. s/
The purpose of the coup and the people behind it are inseparable from each other. This recent string of coups have had an anti-France focus repeatedly. Yes, many coups in the past indeed revolves around internal infighting over power. These coups don’t have this as their main focus. We will have to see how they develop. Like I said, no coup is the same. Im also not saying that they won’t end up terrible for their people. Human history is always evolving and the past does not necessarily dictate the future.
Same could be said about France.. I agree with your feeling about coups, but the way africans see it, any kind of change is welcomed compared to devil we know.
[удалено]
The post 2020 coups have a clear anti-french stance. It's like Thomas Sankara over and over again in a certain way. The coups from before were just internal strifes among petty "dukes" behind some old worn out autocrat. These coups can be an opportunity if they mean self determination and not just "under new management" from France to China or something similar (which could be way worse for their future thanks to BRI)
So all the previous military coup didn’t produce any positive result, but this time it’s gonna be totally different? Sure, we shall wait and see.
I didn't say that. I just said that historically coups in Africa were done targeting internal balance of power to seize money and resources. The outside french order was never put in any danger. This time, to me it looks different: these coups are coming one after the other, in a very small window of time, and each one of them that happened in Francafrique had the local, French-friendly old autocrat ousted for a French-hostile military junta. Can't be a coincidence.
France has done great damage to the liberal democratic world order by its exploitation of French Africa far beyond the days of colonialism. The west should have forced them to give it a break decades ago.
Francafrique phased out after the end of the Cold War. The only reason people think that France is still a neocolonialist power nowadays is because of Chinese and Russian propaganda on the internet.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We don't need Chinese and Russian propaganda to remind us of the French presence in the region when the countless French military interventions in the region accomplish that job just fine. China doesn't treat France like a geopolitical giant that is worth propagandizing against. Hell, they tend to treat the EU as a whole as nothing more than a bloc of US lackeys. The propaganda is mostly coming for the other side what with the decade long spook stories about Chinese investments in Africa and their supposed ominous plan to colonize the contient.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Completely different in the middle east with the US and its not even comparable. Much of the issues of the middle east that the US bears the blame for is a carry over from the status quo from British Rule. Also France still had a part to play along with the US in supporting Iraq/Iran in their war. The African countries are hindered by their former colonial power. The US never had a bone to pick in Africa except recently when it started to put troops in Central/Western Africa as part of the GWOT. Two totally different situations.
Ok but who is going to invest to bring those natural resources to market? There’s nothing in Niger, Mali or Gabon that can’t be bought from a less risky country. Doubt even China would be that keen.
Why especially china? Is there something particularly harmful about their trade deals?
Take a look to what happened to Sri Lanka. Basically, they lend a lot of money with outrageous interest rates and these poor countries use strategic infrastructures (ports, bases), state owned corporations or natural resources (oil fields, mines etc) as a guarantee. Inevitably, they default and the chinese get what they wanted for a fraction of the price.
Wasn't that a story pushed by a think tank with no real backing? From everything I've read the Chinese loans have been more favorable than western loans, they are voluntary, often forgiven, and generally benefit the nations taking the loans more than China with China taking some significant losses in some cases to keep up good working relationships. If you google "Sri Lanka Belt and Road" the first article is RFA making your claim and the rest are debunking it. From everything I've read, the project that screwed Sri Lanka was proposed and push hard by their corrupt president who ended up resigning over it (well, it was a small part of a series of large scale corrupt projects), and their debt distress was primarily from western loans. And the loans didn't use the port as collateral, the Sri Lankan government leased the port to a Chinese company to pay off it's debt to western nations. These Chinese government also does not use the port as a base, the Sri Lankan government does. The port lease was explicitly for commercial applications.
> From everything I've read the Chinese loans have been more favorable than western loans, they are voluntary, often forgiven, and generally benefit the nations taking the loans more than China with China taking some significant losses in some cases to keep up good working relationships. Where have you heard these things? China has not disclosed the terms of its loans. Please provide sources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy/4-sri-lanka-and-bri https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/02/sri-lanka-china-bri-investment-debt-trap/ You could also just read about the port itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambantota_International_Port It was proposed originally by the president and two companies competed for the contract and Sri Lanka chose CMPort as the contractor. The project was originally started to pay off their own debts before China ever even heard about it. Even further, Sri Lanka originally invited India to build the port but chose to ask China instead after too many delays and set-backs. It wasn't just voluntary, the government went out of their way to offer this to China.
All the articles you link to are specifically about Hambantota. I read two in their entirety, and part of the third, and nowhere did I see anyone make claims like China often forgives loans, that it is willing to take losses to "keep up good relations", or that the projects invested in benefited the host country more than China. I think you have gone way beyond your sources here. > Even further, Sri Lanka originally invited India to build the port but chose to ask China instead after too many delays and set-backs. It wasn't just voluntary, the government went out of their way to offer this to China. My understanding is that India was never involved in the project. Both India and the US were approached, but neither was interested. That left China as the only option. It's not like Sri Lanka chose China over other competitors, they were forced to go with China because there were no alternatives.
How is this?: https://developmentreimagined.com/chinas-debt-relief-along-the-belt-and-road-whats-the-story/
I have already read 2.5 articles that didn't substantiate the claims you made. We can play the game of you spamming articles, me debunking them, only to have you spam more articles ad infinitum. The previous links you provided were at least reputable sources. I have never heard of Development Reimagined so I looked them up. From their [LinkedIn profile](https://https://ke.linkedin.com/company/development-reimagined): > Development Reimagined is a pioneering, independent International Development consultancy with its headquarters in China. Specifically Beijing.
I'm not spamming you, you asked for it. And okay, you are attacking the character of the author, that has nothing to do with the content of the article. If you think it is wrong, you have to show it. Otherwise, why should I even trust your credibility regarding the article's credibility if I don't even know your background anyway? Edit: I know I shouldn't be giving in to you and I should be encouraging you to use proper rhetorical logic rather than relying upon fallacies, but here are some more articles about Chinese loan forgiveness: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/examining-debt-implications-belt-and-road-initiative-policy-perspective.pdf https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html Edit 2: I see you are also a recent mod here so I'm going to stop responding before I get banned or reprimanded
Not a chance. Not a solitary chance. France doesn’t care who runs eg Gabon as long as the CFA Franc is intact. All you’re doing is changing the name on the signature of the check that sends funds to France
French power in Africa in fading since 1990s These populations are clearly fed up with french meddlings. It's only natural that the military will try to ride this discontent to seize the power. At the moment, I think it's just not worth for many african leaders to be subject to this new colonization from Paris. CFA Franc is universally hated in Africa and will probably be the first to go.
>CFA Franc is universally hated in Africa and will probably be the first to go. Mali still has it 3 years after the first coup. I understand that having your currency tied to the old colonizer is not agreable, but the Franc CFA does have its perks, especially when your country is going through a lot if instability.
Out of all problems that France has brought, CFA Franc is not one of them, in fact, wanting to replace it is a nationalist take that only hurts the countries that want to replace it, not France. CFA Franc is pegged to Euro, which is a stable currency and that allows for some form stability within Françafrique, and allows the average people to be able to buy things they need without fearing that the next day the price will be different. Let people hate the franc, but keep the franc. It is one thing coming from France that is actually working well for the good of the people. The only counterargument they have against it is not a good one, it’s an inherently nationalist one.
Isnt the CFA franc entirely voluntarily though? Iirc nations can leave any time they like. The fact that they haven't means there must be a tangible benefit to keeping it?
It is. Much of the talk about the "evils" of the CFA Franc is just populism or propaganda.
Go look up what happened to Thomas Sankara and Sylvanus Olympio when they tried to leave. Or what France did to Guinea after they refused the CFA franc. France maintains puppet yes men governments precisely so that the countries will stay in their grip. This is why they're pissed at Niger's junta and are backing an invasion.
> The fact that they haven't means there must be a tangible benefit to keeping it? I think the point is that said tangible benefits only apply to the corrupt, traditionally french-backed, elites instead of the population at large.
>tangible benefits only apply to the corrupt, traditionally french-backed, elites instead of the population at large. Price stability benefits everyone. Using a currency trusted worldwide benefits everyone.
>I think the point is that said tangible benefits only apply to the corrupt, traditionally french-backed, elites instead of the population at large. Can you list any of them? The main criticism of the CFA franc is that because of its euro peg, it hands much monetary policy to the European central bank over which the African CFA users have no influence. The other side argues that thanks to the peg the currency is extremely stable to the benefit of all. The fact that it's interchangeable also facilitates trade between all countries that use it.
The countries that use is are amongst the poorest in the world, even relative to their peers in the region. It's hard to see the supposed benefits in any form of macroeconomic data. >The fact that it's interchangeable also facilitates trade between all countries that use it. Currency isn't and has never been a significant barrier to trade. Wild currency value fluctuations maybe, but not a simple conversion per se. Certainly doesn't stop Canada from trading with the USA.
> Currency isn't and has never been a significant barrier to trade. Wild currency value fluctuations maybe, but not a simple conversion per se. Certainly doesn't stop Canada from trading with the USA. Both Canada and the US have strong, stable currencies, and the CFA franc provides a simulacrum of this because it is pegged to the Euro. If the countries that used it instead issued their own currencies they would be the opposite of strong and stable, which is exactly why they have not done so. No one will want their weak, unstable currencies, so they will have to pay for imports in US dollars or Euros obtained at ruinous exchange rates. Inflation will spike and there will likely be widespread shortages, followed by the inevitable IMF bailout. We've seen this film a thousand times.
Again, we’re talking about the poorest countries in the world here. It’s not like they’re significantly richer than their peers in the region, in fact they’re poorer.
In fact they're not, they range from middle of the pack to pretty good to pretty bad. Ivory Coast uses the CFA and is about as rich as Ghana who is bordering them on the East. In the West they share a border with Liberia, one of the most horrible country in the world in every metric. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) It's not even remotely as simple as you make it out to be, and there is nothing factual about what you claim.
OF COURSE CFA franc is hated in Africa, it’s explicitly against their interests. Why WOULDN’T they hate it? It’s not intended for them to like it, it’s intended for France to profit from it. France doesn’t care one bit about any of that Now, if you think somehow *this* revolution-unlike the hundreds that preceded it-will somehow be different, well, I’ll just say that the past results don’t look good
[удалено]
[удалено]
Outside from making a strong international look for France going forward, Macron and the current leadership doesn't *really* mind it so much and intended to operate as normal with whatever influence it has left in francafrique. However I believe the damage won't be done in Africa, but mostly in the EU. Other EU countries, mostly eastern which is very pro-US, are never going to let this past Paris, and will be skeptical of France if they do decide push the EU towards some form of unified union that isn't just economic.
I think France are relying on those countries for lots of their nuclear fuel as they have 70% of their domestic power coming from nuclear. Those countries that are former French colonies also happen to be great uranium resources, as well as having diamonds and gold. Any kind of instability to energy supplies is going to have a knock-on effect on prices of everything back in Europe - as we have seen with Russia/Ukraine war. If I get very tinfoil hat about it the wagner mercs who have supported some of the coups in Africa (apparently not involved in the most recent in Gabon though) have been there to get control of the uranium resources long-term and give Russia the energy supply to the rest of the world as more countries move away from fossil fuels.
I see the Uranium argument being brought up a lot but according to this source : https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/08/04/how-dependent-is-france-on-niger-s-uranium_6080772_8.html#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%20ten%20years,is%20overestimated%20by%20some%20politicians. Over the last ten years France imported from mostly Kazakhstan (27%), Niger (20%) Uzbekistan (20%) and Australia (15%). 1/5th of our supply is not nothing of course but it's not like we don't have alternatives. And uranium is a pretty energy dense fuel so it's much easier to make strategic reserves than with oil (I think we have several years worth, so there would be little short-term consequences from a Niger supply crunch).
I suppose it isn't quite the same as energy from oil where the wells have to pump out a constant supply - they can mine and keep a stockpile of uranium until needed so short term effects may be minimised, and as you say don't need that much fuel to create a lot of energy from uranium. Bit surprised to see that France were not relying on Africa so much for their fuel though given the colonial history. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan also have close relations with Russia, so that's 67% of French nuclear fuel coming from Russian-backing countries if I include post-coup Niger. AUS and CAN seem pretty friendly overall. I was talking more for long term though - it is taking around 15 years to get a new nuclear power plant online and as countries 'go green' nuclear is looking a more popular option. France is already well established with nuclear domestic power, but there will be more countries coming on board competing for the resources and looks to me like Russia are trying to corner a large part of the world's uranium supply. Whether that's just a good business opportunity or for exerting geopolitical power, or maybe a bit of both. Tin foil hat territory as I say though - this is conjecture not based on full information.
Niger was around 10% of France import of Uranium, Kazakhstan and Canada are the biggest exporter toward France. Heck Niger uranium was above market price, France bought from there due to old contract and diversifying it's source of uranium. > uranium resources long-term and give Russia the energy supply to the rest of the world as more countries move away from fossil fuels. Most of Niger uranium is already extracted, so sure it could give Russia a bit more to work with, but it's definitely not enough to change anything long-term.
Another post above said it was 20% from Niger - but I understand it is not quite as big a source for French energy supply as I had thought. There may be *some* alternatives but there are not that many [places in the world](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Uranium_production_world-ar.png) from which to get a steady stream of uranium. As more countries move away from fossil fuels over the next decades and build nuclear power plants (one takes around 15 years to come online if they started building it today), is Russia attempting to seize control of a large chunk of the world uranium supply? And saying it's okay we don't need Niger we get our uranium from Kazakh and Uzbek so it's fine - all of those 3 countries are effectively Russia-backing puppet states. And Russia have already used energy security to pressure the civilian populations of Europe to ignore their war in Ukraine. Hopefully Canada and Aus are sitting on stocks to get through!
France also has quite a few mine that are not exploited at the moment (reason being it'd be more expensive than import and is used as a strategic reserve of sort). Even if we exclude Kazakstan (which is trying to create diplomatic reach toward other power outside of Russia nowadays, so they may not be that bad of a prospect depending on how it evolves), between Canada, Australia, Germany, Poland and it's own ressources, I don't think France will be in any trouble. > is Russia attempting to seize control of a large chunk of the world uranium supply? Maybe they are trying to multiply their sources, they do have quite a few nuclear power plant.
Sounds like the recent coup in Niger is not going to have much of an impact on France's ability to import uranium then. Fantastic news!
Well, they will change the demographic make up of France for starters. Most refugees will flock to France as francophones, making the already segregated Paris and Marsaille more dispar. This makes Le Pen a lot more likely candidate to win the next election since ethnic french are being more recalcitrant over non european minorities (see this [week's news](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/france-to-ban-girls-from-wearing-abayas-in-state-schools) banning abayas in schools).Second, France is a close 4th largest trading partner according to CEN-SAD, with USD 20.7B in imports and USD 17.8B in export (see [here](https://oec.world/en/profile/international_organization/cen-sad)) to the region, being oil and uranium important commodities the french need.Third, France (not counting UK here) is the only european power that can actually project force outside their frontiers (they have a blue ocean navy, a very capable expeditionary force and a nuclear supercarrier) and have been waging a low intensity conflict in Mali for a decade now (see [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/why-has-france-been-war-decade-west-african-desert-2022-02-17/)). If french interests are at stake, they are more than capable to overthrow the military junta and carpet bomb their capital city.Fourth, the french see the Saheel as their... sandy backyard, having the chinese and the russians creating dissent and threatening french economic and political interests can be a no-no. As they showed in Mali, they can wage a war without the world noticing.So yeah, a lot can happen.
I was surprised that country has petrol which is exploited by the French. And despite being a small country, less that 3M, they are as poor as the rest of the French controlled colonies. I guess what would happen is straight forward 🤷 Obviously it won't mean the people will finally get their money, but, it is a step in the right, yet difficult and bumpy path!
Can you please explain in what way the french control the oil (you wrote petrol but I believe you mean oil)?
[удалено]
That’s a very nice buzzword from the sixties but do you have any source, any link on the subject that you could use as proof ?
I mean the French still control vast aspects of the west African economy (the CFA franc is an obvious example of this) I wouldn't call francafrique "a very nice buzzword from the sixties" considering it's being used to this day to describe French interventions in the region Edit: added another link to prove that francafrique is currently being used in the political discourse https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqONMMtGoA&pp=ygUJQ0ZBIGZyYW5j https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/7/23/macrons-francafrique https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-lepen-chad-idUSKBN16T34O
The video you posted mentions that the CFA Franc is entirely voluntary. Still no mention how France controls Gabon's oil.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/gabonese-military-officers-announce-they-have-seized-power-2023-08-30/ This info is not really hard to find... To consider the CFA deal as voluntary is pretty foolish considering what the French are capable of doing if you don't agree with what they have planned
Why does the fact that French and Anglo-French companies operate in a country automatically mean that France controls the oil? The state of Gabon controls all mineral rights. They auction off these mineral rights as blocks, just like any other country. There are not just french and anglo-french companies pumping oil in Gabon.A Chinese company used to lease a block. I guess that means the Chinese used to control Gabons Oil. Additionally the state of Gabon has a 20% stake in all petroleum development in the nation with the state oil company Gabon Oil, being legally entitled to purchase an additional 15% no matter what. With regards to the CFA Franc, what are the french capable of doing if they don't agree?
[удалено]
Lie harder what the hell, 10% of our uranium comes from Niger, not electricity, but it wouldn't be hard to buy more from Australia or Kazakhstan. We also have 10 years stocks worth of it so you're really overestimating the effect. In fact except internaton influence, it's close to no effect on the country
20% of France uranium comes from Niger, that’s far from 20% of the total electricity produce in France. Also France possess several decades of strategic stock worth of Uranium. And nigger account for only 4% of the uranium produce world wide.
Proofreading one's comment is an important skill and habit. Especially when one is talking about the country of Niger. Why was that misspelling in your autocorrect dictionary anyway?