Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso sign Sahel security pact (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] autotldr 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

BAMAKO, Sept 16 (Reuters) - Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, three West African Sahel nations ruled by military juntas, signed a security pact on Saturday promising to come to the aid of each other in case of any rebellion or external aggression.

The latest coup in Niger drove a further wedge between the three and countries of the regional bloc, the Economic Community of West African States, which has threatened to use force to restore constitutional rule in the country.

Mali and Burkina Faso have vowed to come to Niger's aid if it is attacked.

"I have today signed with the Heads of State of Burkina Faso and Niger the Liptako-Gourma charter establishing the Alliance of Sahel States, with the aim of establishing a collective defence and mutual assistance framework," Mali junta leader Assimi Goita said on his X social media account.

All three states were members of the France-supported G5 Sahel alliance joint force with Chad and Mauritania, launched in 2017 to tackle Islamist groups in the region.

France has been forced to withdraw its troops from Mali and Burkina Faso, and is in a tense standoff with the junta that seized power in Niger after it asked it to withdraw its troops and its ambassador.

The original article contains 346 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 40%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] appel@whiskers.bim.boats -2 points 1 year ago

Good on them for sticking to an Africa for Africans. Get the west out, let the people govern themselves.

[-] kefirchik@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago

Niger is ditching ECOWAS for the security from other states that recently underwent coups. It’s hard to see how this is in the interest of the common person.

Just because France is against the coup doesn’t mean it’s good for Nigeriens.

[-] appel@whiskers.bim.boats 2 points 1 year ago

From the media coming from Niger and other countries it definitely seems to me that the people are fully supportive of the coup. The other nations that underwent coups also were deposing west-installed leaders.

[-] flyingsquirrel@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

Niger is a 25M inhabitants country. A couple of demonstrations supported by Russian don't reflect the global reality.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

If the people fully supported the coup the military would have elections and cement their leadership.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

How do you define "the people"? Do all Americans support Biden? Do all Russians support Putin? Of course not! Parts of the population in Niger definitely support the coup, I'm sure. But how many? No idea.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

It's called a purge. They've tried working within the Western rules based order for decades. It's not working to get the West out. So the coup is the next attempt at pushing out the West and the compradors in order to create the operating conditions for self-governance by the people for the people instead of these fake democracies that only exist to legitimize neocolonial dominance in a way that white people can't feel guilty about.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, "let people govern themselves" said the people who undemocraticly govern the countries without any legitimization after couping

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, "we will judge how they rule themselves and demand they behave to our liking as part of them ruling themselves" said the colonists who dominated and subjugated 80% of the humans on the planet for 600 years.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It's absolutely not my place to tell them how to rule themselves. When you look at countries in former colonized regions (South America, Africa, MENA) you will see that they came up with quite diverse systems post-independence. For example, in the parts of Somalia that arent a failed state, you have an elected parliament that still is based on tribe membership.

But deciding on how to govern should encompass all people within that country.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml -2 points 1 year ago

It can't until you kick out the Europeans once and for all, because as long as the Europeans still wield influence, it's impossible for the masses to have their interests promoted.

[-] livus@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

The people should be allowed to govern themselves I agree but it would be really naive to think that's what's happening here.

For starters, the west isn't "out". Both the US and France still have boots on the ground in Niger.

International mineral exploitation companies are still operating in the Sahel.

Non-African mercenaries now have a strong presence in the Sahel as enforcers.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

How about we support democracy instead of a military junta.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 6 points 1 year ago

If the junta had launched a coup because the president was corrupt or a tool it'd be one thing, but they did it because their leader was getting fired for being bad at his job.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah. If they were "for the people" they'd have an election.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

There are things called elections that I encourage Africans to vote in instead of cheering on autocratic coups

[-] livus@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are things called bullets that coup leaders use to stop ordinary citizens from carrying out democracy.
There are things called arms dealers that provide the guns and bullets.
There are things called oil companies and mining companies that provide support for governments that act in their favour.

I could go on. But pretending that ordinary African people don't want fairly elected leadership would be cynical and intellectually dishonest.

[-] Gsus4@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago

I agree that Africans should be in charge of their destiny, not foreign interests...but "Africa for Africans" sounds just as good/bad as "Europe for Europeans".

[-] livus@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

@Gsus4 ... "Europe should be governed by Europeans" would have a different ring to it if Europe had been colonized by Africa and Africans were still having a massive input into how it was run, making Europe peg its currency to African currency, dispatching drones to bomb people at a wedding in the French countryside, mining mineral wealth and carrying it off to Africa, sending military "advisers" to tell Europeans how to govern etc etc etc.

[-] Gsus4@feddit.nl -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As usual, nuance is the important part here, not slogans (you can hide anything inside them). I'll admit that a little healthy nationalism is useful to keep foreign interests from overwhelming you (or more if anyone gets too pushy), but it's important to not let it stop you using all the tools at your disposal for development e.g. CFA Franc is very useful as a way to facilitate trade between neighbouring countries with the drawback that the "central bank" is located in Paris, but during decolonisation there was no clear leader to control the currency, so a foreign influence made sense at the time, maybe today it could be the AU, but I see no credible alternatives. https://theconversation.com/why-abandoning-the-cfa-franc-would-be-a-risky-operation-120551 (the Wikipedia article is notably terse)

[-] livus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@Gsus4 I agree, slogans are nebulous at best, which is why they are so useful to politicians. I'm not the person who introduced the slogan (that was @appel, and as I said elsewhere I don't actually agree with them that this is what it is - the Sahel is still in the clutches of global corporates).

I was just objecting because you seemed to be equating attempted decolonization with xenophobia towards powerless migrants in high income countries, and I don't think that's appropriate.

[-] Gsus4@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But xenophobia is not class-based, it can be aimed at powerful people (and be partially justified) or aimed at powerless people. Anyone can fall for it, look at the recent example in South Africa: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66808346

I'm just trying to figure out where to draw a line for an acceptable amount of useful self-defense xenophobia (a sort of protectionism) as a general principle e.g. legislation preventing foreign countries from owning any of your critical infrastructure sounds reasonable vs self-destructive xenophobia e.g. "those damn foreigners"