Two months after the coup d’état in Niger which led to the overthrow of elected President Mohamed Bazoum, France announced on Sunday September 24 that it would withdraw, by the end of the year, its troops positioned in the country.
A decision which puts an end to the standoff engaged with the military in power in Niamey, but which “reveals the contradictions of France’s African policy”, according to Paul-Simon Handy, East Africa regional director of the Institute Security Study (ISS) which analyzes the reasons for the French setback.
Paul-Simon Handy It is in any case a humiliating withdrawal. The intransigent posture of Emmanuel Macron, supporter of a hard line against the putschists since the start of the crisis, augured only two outcomes: a clash with the Nigerien military or a forced departure. Support for President Bazoum was legitimate, moreover the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) are on this line. But when there is a change of regime, even if it is illegal, we must demonstrate realism, beyond disapproval. Although laudable, the French posture has sinned by an absence of political and diplomatic pragmatism.
Its blatant contradictions. France claims to have intervened militarily in the Sahel to fight against terrorism at the request of the authorities and not to protect presidents, as was the case during the era of “Françafrique”. But when the putschists ordered her to withdraw her troops, she wanted to save the presidential chair of the overthrown Nigerien head of state. Ultimately, Paris lost on both fronts: it was no longer present to fight terrorism and it failed to help a leader considered one of its last allies in the Sahel.
Yes, and this is an opportunity for France to ask itself fundamental questions: what are its interests in Africa? How can we justify the presence of military bases today? To protect who? France must provide clear answers, beyond a moralizing discourse on the defense of democracy, itself steeped in contradictions. We want to consolidate the rule of law while sometimes defending controversial regimes, like in Chad. France is more pragmatic in the English-speaking region where it assumes its economic and strategic interests. This is what should be considered in French-speaking countries.
Absolutely nothing. The putschists totally lack political lucidity. They have achieved the feat of getting angry with neighboring countries, the African Union, ECOWAS. Their only allies – Mali, Guinea and Burkina Faso – are pariah and coup regimes. The alliance with Bamako and Ouagadougou is, in this respect, ridiculous. An addition of weaknesses does not create strength. How would states that fail to drive violent extremist groups out of their homes be able to become a common force?
Yes, the junta has succeeded in galvanizing Nigerien public opinion a little more. This is necessary to establish its legitimacy. But this popular support is fragile, because the repercussions of ECOWAS sanctions will dangerously affect the daily lives of Nigeriens. There are already notable shortages. And ECOWAS does not seem ready to give in on sanctions.
ECOWAS has never considered that the military route was the preferred option. However, she made a mistake in bringing up this track very early on. Its first statement indicated that it was ready to use “all options, including military”. This incident was used by the junta to galvanize its troops and Nigerian and African public opinion on the theme “Africans want to attack other Africans”. However, ECOWAS only said what its texts provided for in the event of a breakdown in the constitutional process.
What is certain is that the French-speaking zone is crossed by a groundswell which mixes repulsion and attraction. We insult France on social networks in the evening and, the next day, we ask for a visa at the French embassy. We say we support Vladimir Putin but we are not going to try to migrate to Russia. There is a form of schizophrenia symptomatic of a postcolonial moment which is not over.
Public opinion and certain African politicians have a biased vision of the influence of Paris: they grant it more power than it has. Accusing France of being responsible for all the continent’s ills, as leaders recently did at the United Nations, is infantilizing. It is a cover-up that demonstrates an abysmal incapacity to think about oneself and to think about one’s relationships with France in a serene manner.
On the CFA franc for example, it is not fair to consider this currency as the main obstacle to the economic development of French-speaking countries, otherwise a state like Guinea, which has significant natural resources and which is not in the zone CFA should have taken off. Which is far from the case. This speech only compensates those in power for their responsibilities, however overwhelming.
Doumbouya’s speech is incomprehensible, because Guinea has only known military and civil dictatorships. Its first president Sékou Touré also focused his policy on the rejection of French domination. However, his country has not developed as much as it should have. The absence of economic results is not the result of democracy, but of failures attributable to the weakness, or even the absence, of the State. If the latter is incapable of providing basic services throughout its territory, how could democracy function?
His blunt tone – which he doesn’t only have with Africans – undoubtedly plays a role in this stiffening. Emmanuel Macron would benefit from smoothing out the angles when he addresses the military in power who are not Nobel diplomats. However, it should be noted that his statements are also often the subject of online disinformation campaigns. Remarks are truncated to serve as a speech against France. We saw this during the press conference with Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi. In this certainly uncomfortable exchange, Emmanuel Macron was fair in his words and his observations, but his words were taken out of context.
He is responsible for spectacular actions such as the Africa-France summit in Montpellier, or the creation of the Foundation for Democracy. But we must not forget that a foreign policy is also built with those in power. Organizing a summit excluding the latter in favor of civil societies was a mistake, because it is not the latter who make the decisions. What matters today is the redefinition of state-to-state relations. France must come out of a hysterical and emotional mode and redefine its relations with French-speaking countries in Africa in a very cold manner. It is no longer the power it was in 1960. It has lost influence and it must redefine its relations in the light of this cold reality to maximize its interests in Africa while helping its former colonies to exit. of great poverty.
Today, Africans can boast of other alliances. France maintains a comparative advantage in certain areas such as scientific expertise in the Sahel. Cultural ties remain extremely strong with French-speaking countries. Hence the incomprehension that followed the announcement of the suspension of collaborations with artists from the Sahel. Although there was backpedaling, it was shocking.