Bertrand Badie, expert in international relations and professor emeritus of the prestigious Sciences Po school in Paris, analyzes for La Vanguardia the crisis in Niger, which he considers a great slap in the face for France and “a humiliation” for President Emmanuel Macron. Badie sees a key role for the United States, privileged interlocutor of the coup plotters.
What have France and the West done wrong for what is happening in the Sahel to happen?
If I had to sum it up, I would say that France, since the independence of the African states, has practiced schoolmaster diplomacy, based on the temptation to give lessons and distribute punishments. This method worked quite well at first because there was only a small political elite that was sensitive to this cronyism bond. Probably France has not understood that African societies have been transformed, that it is the youngest continent, with a renewed generation and an involvement of society in the political game that tolerates less and less that schoolmaster diplomacy, that mix of lesson and punishment.
What else went wrong?
France has not seen this wind of mistrust in African public opinion and this desire for change grow, at least for ten years. When we look at the statistics, like in Niger, we see that the economic and social situation is not good. African society has found that the political system was not at all effective, it did not offer economic or social progress, that there was still very strong corruption and a facade democracy. Little by little, these political systems have seen their legitimacy contested. Later, due to international propaganda, especially from Russia and Wagner, this challenge to the political system has been transformed into a challenge to France and the old colonial powers. I would say more towards France than towards the West, because what is interesting in Niger is the activism of the United States. The military junta has sought the United States, appointing a prime minister and a chief of staff very close to the Americans. It is not so much an anti-Western contention as an anti-French or, rather, anti-French governmental contention.
Can the Americans solve the crisis?
General Tiani’s skill has been to address the United States. Since he launched the coup, he has done nothing but give gifts to the USA, appointing as Prime Minister Lamine Zeine, and as Chief of Staff, General Barmou, trained in the USA, and establishing links with Blinken and the undersecretary of ‘ Status. There is the desire for a rather cunning game of pitting the United States against France to consolidate its own power, the coup d’état and then a transitional regime.
What links does the Prime Minister have with Washington?
The United States knows him and offers him guarantees because he is an economist who, although trained in France, has a neoliberal ideology and played a very important role in the African Development Bank (ADB). These are very acceptable credentials for the United States. It is not the same as having appointed a dark general.
Is the Sahel like a second war front in Ukraine?
He is right to say that. It’s not said enough. I believe that international relations form a unique system. Yes, there is a Ukrainian echo in this Niger crisis, first because, clearly, the obsession of the United States and also of France, the EU and the ECOWAS itself (Economic Community of West African States) is to contain the influence Russian in Africa. Putin’s game, as we saw recently in Saint Petersburg (Russia-Africa summit), is to align as many African states as possible to his cause. Of the 16 former French colonies in Africa, 9 have refused to sanction Russia or vote against it at the UN. From a certain point of view, the events in Niger are the triumph of the Global South. One realizes that, more and more, the Global South is the arbiter in this conflict and each party (Russia and the West) wants to have the best possible position in this arbitration. That is why the United States has rushed to manage the crisis in Niger and its objective, contrary to France, is not to eliminate the coup, but to ensure that what comes out of it is more favorable to the USA than to Russia.
Macron is very quiet, on holiday at Fort de Brégançon. Isn’t it amazing?
Be careful, he said a lot at first. Macron’s big mistake was his immediate reaction, too strong, of condemnation of the coup, and almost a call to eliminate the coup plotters and to restore his friend, President Bazoum. But he soon realized it was more complicated than he thought. Macron’s big mistake is always to react immediately. He thought Cedeao would do the job. This is knowing Africa badly. Member states are deeply divided and their public opinion is against military intervention. Macron realized he was at a dead end. Faced with this he had two alternatives, retreat, which in the eyes of the whole world is a humiliation, or stand in a corner and wait. That’s what he did. For Macron, the issue of Niger is a terrible drama. He loses his best support in Africa, appears as unable to do anything, is forced to leave the spotlight in the United States, which is a very important humiliation in the African context, and shows that he has been wrong in the your calculations
Is the failure in the Sahel the equivalent for France of the US failure in Afghanistan?
yes and no Yes because it shows once again that foreign military interventions do not work. It already happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen. It is a universal phenomenon. The big difference is that there was no previous contention or even previous history between the United States and Afghanistan before the 2001 intervention. Niger is much more complicated. It is a former French colony. France fails to unpack its colonial history. If you compare it with other colonial powers, such as Great Britain or Portugal, which was the last colonizer in Africa, they are countries that have been able to turn the page. The great drama of France is that it does not know how to turn a page, it is the inability of France to redefine itself.
What is more dangerous at the moment, the drive to jihadism or the uncontrolled migration through Niger?
Neither one thing nor another. Let’s be modern, migration is an irreversible parameter of globalization. Linking the Nigerien question to the migration flow is to scare public opinion in order to prevent it from evolving on its analyzes of Africa. Regarding jihadism, of course it is a problem, because of the violence it generates, but jihadism takes advantage of the disastrous situation in Africa in terms of social and economic. Jihadism is an epiphenomenon of a society that does not manage to get out of its development problem and especially that does not get this recognition, this right to be a full-fledged actor in international relations. Jihadists only take advantage of Africa’s failures.
