• BlackSpasmodic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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).