this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
162 points (97.6% liked)

World News

39032 readers
3419 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rammer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perceptions matter. Even if the West is supplying the arms. It is still West Africans doing the deed.

It would be a colonial intervention if Western militaries invaded the country and deposed the junta. That would be a whole different situation. It wasn't that long ago when Western powers would routinely do this. Or fund dictators to get rid of democratically elected officials. So, progress?

[–] BlackSpasmodic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference is that the west outsourced the war to the Africans. It's probably costs more than direct intervention but they get a compliant country that they can use for profits and whatever else, and none of the risk to human life. I wouldn't call that progress, just neocolonialism

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a pretty cynical world view. The president was democratically elected by Nigeriens and has support from the majority of the public. Speculation suggests that General Abdourahamane Tchiani initiated the coup because he's 62 and was about to be dismissed from his position in the government. He cites security risks that were ignored near Niger's borders, but there's not been much evidence of that.

Sure it helps the West to have a more stable, democratic president at the helm of the country you could trade with, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily exploiting the country. France wants to ensure that their supply of uranium fuel isn't disrupted and the idea of cutting off the export of uranium to the rest of the world was floated by Tchiani. Without the uranium exports, Niger's net international trade value drops by 15% (-$1.75B to -$2B).

The world is way more exploitative than you seem to recognize. I suggest researching unequal exchange.

"Beyond this, outright corruption has also played a part in maintaining the postcolonial order. Françafrique has comprised countries notorious for human rights violations, including Niger. Subservient puppet leaders ignored democratic progress in return for massive aid programmes. Bribes have been paid via arms deals and other help with security, and – of course – in hard cash that has been laundered."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/05/niger-crisis-france-empire-africa-coup-colony