1y ago

France to start Niger evacuations, ‘special’ Italian flight too

www.scmp.com France to start Niger evacuations, ‘special’ Italian flight too

French government also offers to help other Europeans to leave days after pro-Western president toppled, amid military-ruled neighbours Mali and Burkina Faso voicing support for coup leaders.

France will begin evacuating its nationals from Niger on Tuesday, the foreign ministry said, after a coup there last week toppled the country’s pro-Western leader.

The decision to move citizens out was prompted by attacks on the French embassy in the capital Niamey, and the closure of Niger’s airspace which made regular departures impossible, the ministry said in a statement.

France had earlier on Tuesday said that it was preparing an evacuation “in the face of a deteriorating security situation in Niamey” but gave no time frame.

The foreign ministry said France was offering to evacuate other European nationals wanting to leave.

Italy also said on Tuesday it would offer a special flight to repatriate its nationals from Niamey.

“The Italian government has decided to offer our fellow nationals present in Niamey the possibility to leave the city with a special flight for Italy,” Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani tweeted.

The ministry said it was “not an evacuation” but “a special flight for those who want to leave the country”.

Niger President Mohamed Bazoum, 63, was detained by his own presidential guard in a third coup in as many years in the Sahel, following putsches in neighbouring fellow former French colonies Mali and Burkina Faso.

Former colonial power France and the United States have between them deployed 2,600 soldiers in Niger to battle jihadists.

You're viewing a single thread.

19 comments

Watching France lose control of its remaining colonial holdings while the French population simultaneously cause chaos at home is a pleasure I did not expect to get until at least 2030.
- I don’t find pleasure in the success of jihadist movements that overthrow democratic elections. I think the world would be better off with less religious extremists exerting control over people. It’s like celebrating the creation of North Korea because western powers lost influence over the area. Doesn’t make the inevitable oppression any more tolerable.
  
  Calling one of France's last remaining colonies democratic is absolutely absurd. Do you also argue that Batista was democratically elected?
  I thought it was a bit of a joke that many westerners are still supporters of colonialism but it's apparently true. That or there is really no understanding of history here. Niger was literally still a colony of France, unlike many other African nations that managed to break free of colonial dominance with the help of the soviets through the 60s-80s it did not. France is the last remaining operator of colonies around the world.
  
  Do you think a jihadist regime will be closer to a democratic society? From my understanding of religious extremism, it would probably make it less democratic.
  If Castro was a religious zealot I’d also prefer Batista stay in power tbh. Castro was more secular though so I don’t see it as inherently doomed to an even more fucked up level of abuse and control and wouldn’t hold the same perspective. Because the two scenarios are noticeably different.
  Don’t get me wrong, I do like the idea of colonial territories being made economically independent and such but I don’t think a movement that self describes as jihadist will get them going in the right direction to a just society.
  
  I'm less concerned about democracy in the poorest country in the world and significantly more concerned with building out the infrastructure it requires. Getting out from underneath colonial rule is a pre-requisite to progress in that domain. That either comes from a coup or from a revolution, I don't particularly care which.
  If Castro was a religious zealot I’d also prefer Batista stay in power tbh. Castro was more secular though so I don’t see it as inherently doomed to an even more fucked up level of abuse and control and wouldn’t hold the same perspective.
  Even if it did have a level of religious control and involvement(there's no evidence of that so far) we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement of whether it would be progressive politically for the country. If it results in the construction of infrastructure, or independent political structures, and a foundation from which the country can go its own way, then it is progressive.
  Let me put it to you this way. If progress is impossible under whatever the current regime is (in this case it was a French colony) then anything and everything that moves the dial away from that becomes progressive as it opens the door to further movement in the direction that we would like to see.
  In months/years to come will opposing this government and calling for progress be something I end up doing? Probably. (and that would represent further progress that was not possible under the previous French colonial arrangement) But for this exact moment in time I am mostly optimistic.
  The main apprehension I have is over where France goes to get their uranium next. This take was doing the rounds yesterday. However I think it's probably wrong as there are quite a lot of different places to get uranium from, and also Niger's own uranium will end up on the global market anyway. But I'll be keeping an eye on what the French response to its energy needs are just in case.
  The attitude "they're poor and starving and being exploited to the hilt.... but at least they're not religious" does not hold much sway with me. I'll take the latter if it improves some of the former where it previously could not have been achieved, then deal with the latter in further steps.
  
  A jihadist coup won’t result in the infrastructure you hope for. It will result similarly to other jihadist nations, torn apart by sectarian violence and religious oppression. It’s telling that you want to overlook that aspect to focus on geopolitical intrigue that doesn’t affect the daily lives of Nigerians.
  I never said a coup in theory was bad. I’m saying this coup is bad because sometimes it turns out that bad people can be couped by worse people.
  Progressive movements will never be fueled by religious fundamentalism, your waffling about how a religiously zealous Castro could be progressive is you playing dumb because if you actually believe in progressive ideals you’d know organized religion back by the state is the opposite of those ideals.
  
  I don't know why you and others keep calling it a jihadist coup.
  The accusation by the media has been that this might lead to jihadists gaining greater power in the region as a result of taking advantage of the destabilisation. Not that these people themselves are jihadists.
  My response takes that into account.
  
  Yup, exactly, just like Afghanistan freed itself from external influence, and now you can see they are the envy of the developing world!
  
  I thought it was a bit of a joke that many westerners are still supporters of colonialism but it’s apparently true.
  Oh Western support for imperialism is still alive and well, Ukraine has shown that. At the outset of the conflict you had people saying that Ukraine shouldn't have sought closer ties to the West because it would inevitably piss off Russia; or, that the US/West should negotiate a peace treaty. They brought up how during the Cold War, American imperialists agreed that Ukraine should stay in the Russian sphere of influence.
  All of that thinking is just imperialism. If you say country X should not seek certain international ties because it will piss off country Y, you're defending the idea that X is Y's possession and it must have Y's approval to exercise any self determination. They aren't sovereign if they can't make their own decisions. Similarly, to advocate for the US to negotiate a peace treaty completely ignores Ukraine and doesn't even ask what Ukraine wants. If the US brokers peace and Ukraine doesn't want it, it's imperialism in the form of daddy US knowing better and doing what's best. This happened with the Cold War, where the American imperialists didn't even bother to consider what Ukraine wanted when deciding which sphere of influence it should be in.
  The hilarious, depressing part is that a lot of the people who argue these points also call themselves anti imperialist. Anti imperialism is fighting back against a global power who says you're historically part of their empire and have no distinct culture, not suggesting you make peace with them and give them some of your land. Some people have made the logical fallacy that because the US has done bad and pro imperialist things, anything which the US dislikes must be good and anti imperialist. They don't recognize that if the US dislikes what Russia's doing, that doesn't mean Russia is in the right.
  I don't expect you to fully agree with me, but I hope we at least agree that what I've described is also imperialism. It's a general test to see if someone actually dislikes imperialism or if they just dislike the West and give a pass to non Western imperialism. I sincerely hope you're the former.
  
  We disagree on the definition of imperialism. You are using this word to mean "of empire". Whereas I use this word to describe an economic system, the highest stage of capitalism.
  I agree that these actions are "of empire", so we don't really disagree on most of what you're saying. I just wouldn't use the word imperialism for it because of the difference in definitions we have.
  
  Fair enough! And like I said, I'm really glad to hear that. I find that while we disagree often, it makes me consider things from a different perspective, which I really appreciate. Your consistency is the main reason why it's enjoyable.
  
  Consider also: https://www.hexbear.net/post/281425
- While I don't endorse colonialism, I'm not quite sure they'll get it better with Russia.
  
  You either have to believe the new state is becoming a colony of Russia(it obviously isn't), or accept that its improved from the colonial arrangement and that's what makes it attractive to make deals with Russia.
  Russia gets plenty out of it without doing anything colonial. The export deals France had were basically stripping the country of all of its wealth, Uranium and Gold in particular, which Niger are nationalising.
  Russia will certainly get some beneficial deals out of their help offered but don't have to make themselves as bad as France to come out on top of this, and in fact simply the act of weakening France and by extension the rest of the western bloc is a win for them by itself. I don't see Russia as anywhere near as good as the Soviets were but the Soviet strategy was basically "liberate african countries entirely in order to weaken the west who are the colonial holders of these countries". The history of soviet liberation of africa is also the primary reason many in africa still hold a lot of positivity to Russia, even though the two are not remotely comparable.
  
  It's now a military dictature. Which one of those went well in the last 50 years in Africa?
  
  Every single african nation that today is no longer a colony achieved so through either a coup or revolutionary regime. What exactly are you expecting people to do? Vote colonialism out? How childish.
  
  Nice try. Avoiding the question and distracting with colonialism. But Niger was not a colony anymore, and you provided no example of a military coup that ended well in recent africa history. You are also avoiding the very obvious Russian imperialism of this coup. When a protest shows more Russian flags than Nigerian ones, I hardly believe it's going to be independent...
  
  Yes it fucking was a colony. Calling somewhere "independent" and puppeting it while maintaining all colonial extractions is not freedom from colonialism.
  You only learned the country's name this week, and your entire understanding of this topic is from wikipedia. I am very much willing to give them, Burkina Faso and Mali an opportunity to be better, or not. At which point I will adjust my opinion.
  Nigerian
  At least get the name of the fucking country right. You're naming the wrong ass country.
- You have to be delusional if you think that a military coup orchestrated by Russia benefits anyone but a few corrupt elites. Your kneejerk reaction is nothing but cutting of your nose to spite your face. The French are certainly no saints but between military dictators, jihadist terrorists and Russian warlords they are one of the better actors in the region. If you unironically call the current state a French colony you must be lost deep in the Russian propaganda rabbit hole.

19 comments