|
The West's response to 'Russian Africa': France is overboard, the United States has a new strategy
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.By Viktor Vasliev [REGNUM] The withdrawal of three countries of the Alliance of Sahel States - Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso - from the largest interregional association ECOWAS can be called an expected event. But its consequences for the Dark Continent could be fateful. The communiqué issued on Sunday following a meeting of the leaders of the three Sahel states makes serious accusations against the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS): “ Under the influence of foreign powers, having betrayed its founding principles, the association has become a threat to its member states and its population " The French colonial power still stands behind ECOWAS, this was also stated in the joint press release of the Alliance of Sahel States. To date, there has been no response from ECOWAS. Meanwhile, this is a hard blow for the unification. There is no noticeable public reaction from the French media and officials. They are forced to accept this as a fait accompli, but are unlikely to leave it unanswered. The whole question is what strategies to counter the further growth of Russian influence and the ambitions of local elites for real sovereignty will now be opposed by our main geopolitical opponents in the region - France and the United States. And this is where the fun begins. MALI STARTS AND WINS The situation itself is unique. The Republic of Mali, the only one that truly embarked on a real rebellion and national revolution back in 2020, has grown from a regional threat purely for France into a real alternative and counterbalance both for Francefrique and for the entire system of hegemony of Western powers and companies on the Dark Continent. France simply overslept the mood within society and, more importantly, among the military of Mali. The coup, which initially no one attached any importance to and which came as a surprise to everyone, grew into something more and caused a chain reaction in the region. The neighbors realized that “this is possible.” In May 2021, Colonel Assimi Goita, who can be considered the key personality and inspirer of all changes in the subregion, took full power in the country. Already in October 2022, captain Ibrahim Traore, who was personally acquainted with him, came to power in neighboring Burkina Faso. And in July 2023, as we all remember, during the Russia-Africa Summit, the military took power in Niger. This is how the informal “union of three” is born. Already in September, the leaders of the three states announced the creation of the “Alliance of Sahel States”, and in December the possibility of creating a confederation based on a purely military association was discussed. Such an avalanche-like development of events became possible due to disagreements within the Western coalitions. And here we cannot do without a detailed description of everything that happened in Niger, because since the events in July last year in Niamey, a process of rapid and already striking divergence between the United States and France begins, and in this story there is so far one clear loser - Paris. As for the beneficiaries, everything is murkier, although formally there is every reason to include Russia among them. However, if we switch attention from geopolitical games, contradictions and confrontations between major world powers to the potential opportunities for the African elites and states themselves, one thing can be said: the Sahel countries have a unique chance. A historic chance to begin building a truly sovereign statehood. OBSTINATE FRANCE The events in Niamey became a catalyst for processes that had long been brewing within the Western coalition, including within the NATO bloc in the African direction. If in March 2011, on the eve of the military intervention in Libya, the Western coalition had no doubts about its feasibility, now the situation is the opposite. That is why Niamey survived, and almost immediately the “Sahel State Alliance” happened, because where one or two fail, three already gain stability and turn into a real alternative. Blame it all on “obstinate France”. It was Paris, which in many ways played the role of instigator in the events of the spring of 2011, that laid claim to the Libyan heritage and largely received it after the brutal execution of Muammar Gaddafi. The French hoped to permanently take advantage of the capabilities of their stronger and richer allies (USA, UK, etc.) and at the same time make decisions in the subregions of West and Central Africa exclusively independently. “The old fashioned way,” as General Charles de Gaulle and diplomat Jacques Foccart bequeathed. Of course, this irritated the Americans, who claimed to implement their own strategy in the region, at least in the security sphere, but for the time being gave the formal palm to the French, trusting their experience and competence. Yes, there were moments of mutual claims, leaks and obvious competition in individual locations, but in all main areas positions were agreed upon, and most often in favor of official Paris. Everything changed in the short period after the coup in Niger. The French reacted to it with public hysteria from Emmanuel Macron himself and his foreign policy department, and continued with a series of ultimatums on behalf of ECOWAS regarding the new authorities of Niger. A military solution to the problem has been publicly voiced several times, including following meetings of the heads of the general staffs of the armies of ECOWAS members. However, the situation caused such public outrage, primarily within the countries allies of France, that it threatened the position of the rulers themselves who were in power there. First of all, we are talking about the leader of Côte d'Ivoire Alassane Ouattara and the leader of Senegal Macky Sall. The French clearly overestimated themselves and thus completely “lost face” in the region. THE PRICE OF SOVEREIGNTY The military authorities of Niger showed amazing firmness and restraint, including significantly shaking the position of the coalition that was forming against them, including, in addition to the initiative to create the “Alliance of Sahel States”, finding a common language with Chad, and with Nigeria, and with Benin. Yes, there was a tactical moment in the first week after the coup when the Nigerian leader Bola Tinubu, as one can now certainly assume, was at the instigation of the US administration, within the framework of his capabilities and powers as the head of ECOWAS, insisted on a military scenario for solving problems with the new authorities. There is a logical explanation for this tactic. The bet was placed on the internal conflict between the putschists and the Niger Armed Forces. The fact is that the entire officer corps of the Niger army was trained in the States, and the Americans counted on the loyalty of some of the military. It is not for nothing that Victoria Nuland, who arrived in Niamey in August, unlike representatives of France and the ECOWAS delegation, was received by the new military authorities, namely Brigadier General of the Niger Army Moussa Barmu, who at one time was educated at the US National Defense University (Washington). However, the Americans' hopes were not destined to come true. It turned out the other way around. The ultimatums regarding Niamey provided an opportunity for the new authorities to mobilize society and elites as never before and prepare for a possible military intervention by ECOWAS. The example of General Barmu is very indicative. The American press wrote about him: “One of the United States’ favorite generals is leading a coup in Niger.” When it came to the fact that Niger could lose military, food and humanitarian aid from the United States if it refuses to fulfill the conditions for returning power to the previous government, he responded to The Wall Street Journal: “If this is the price of our sovereignty, so be it.” " WASHINGTON'S EPIPHANY The Americans “suddenly” realized with all obviousness that objective hatred of the French in Africa and its consequences in the form of a series of military coups and political coups significantly outweighed all sorts of advantages from working with such an ally. Such an “ally” threatens the success and very expediency of the presence of the West as such on the Dark Continent and at the same time opens a wide window of opportunity both for competitors (Arabs, Indians) and for direct geopolitical opponents (Chinese, Russians, Iranians). Even though the US has spent over $500 million on arming and equipping the Niger Armed Forces; built the largest military base in the region, in the north of Niger (Agadez), specializing in UAVs; in fact, they brought their faithful ally Mohamed Bazoum to power in the country - nevertheless, the Americans decided to wisely enter into a dialogue with the new military authorities. If the French insist on an uncompromising line and “suffocation” of military democracies through sanctions and blocking borders, then the Americans are ready to conduct a dialogue with the new authorities. Take, for example, the last ECOWAS summit held in December last year. Although the Pentagon, led by Lloyd Austin, has threatened to dismantle its military base unless an agreement is reached with the junta on a precise timetable for the transfer of power to civilians, the State Department acknowledged the coup last October and maintained diplomatic relations with Niamey. The new US Ambassador, Kathleen Fitzgibbon, took office on December 2 and presented her credentials to General Abdurahaman Ciani. Washington's only measure against the new Niger authorities was a freeze on financial cooperation. NEW AMERICAN STRATEGY Using the situation with Niger as an example, the Americans drew final conclusions. They refused to support France and, moreover, decided that the collapse of pro-French regimes in Africa would open up more operational space for them on the continent. Not only is the Anglo-Saxon media actively using anti-colonial rhetoric directed against Paris, but recently Americans have directly or indirectly been behind a number of obvious anti-French protests in Africa. In particular, the coup in Gabon that happened in August last year can partly be considered as a soft version of a change in the orientation of the country's political authorities within one clan - from Paris to Washington. What follows is even more interesting. The Americans drew conclusions and completely updated their own strategy, at least in the West African subregion, as they publicly stated from the pages of The Wall Street Journal: “ We have no choice but to retreat and operate from the coastal West African states.” The point is that the United States stopped all military programs with Niger, and reduced its military contingent at the base in Agadez to a minimum number. Formally, thus recognizing equally the failure of the previous approach (the bet on an alliance with France, where Paris played the first fiddle), and its own withdrawal from the Sahel region. The United States decided that it would be more effective to place military bases in coastal countries - thus blocking the growth of influence of Russia and other competitors in the region. No logistics, no influence. No access to the sea, no logistics. Burkina Faso and Mali, as well as their armed forces, were never initially considered capable of successfully countering jihadists by American experts. But the US’s bet on Niger’s army special forces did not pay off; there was a coup there and a pro-Russian course for the new military government was outlined. Which clearly “disappointed” the Americans and forced them to change their strategy. The new strategy is military cooperation and the placement of bases in several coastal countries of West Africa. New potential allies (and military bases as a result) in the region include Benin, Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. This time no one will ask the French for their opinion. Posted by: badanov 2024-01-30 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=690000 |