The Algerian government is critical of the coup in Niger but opposes any potential military intervention by ECOWAS, calling instead for a political solution.
I don’t know much about Nigerien politics (btw Nigerian refers to Nigeria), but I’ve been trying to read up since the coup. It seems the coup government enjoys a lot of popular support, as opposed to the previously “elected” government. I’ve seen people claim that the previous elections were a sham, with the winning candidate straight buying up votes with US and French funds, though I don’t have proof for this claim (but seems plausible).
As an outsider looking it, it certainly seems to me that a government that wants to oust French economic and political influence from the country will be far better in improving Nigerien people’s lives rather than a government that is in favour of maintaining French influence in the country.
Niger is a prime example of Parenti’s view “there are no poor countries, there are over-exploited countries”. Niger has rich deposits of Uranium, Gold, precious stones, Oil, and rare minerals.
The reason it has become such a headline is that Niger is France’s prime supplier of Uranium, and France acquires that Uranium at 20% its regular price. France is the EU’s largest producer of electricity from nuclear powerplants. And it sells this electricity at quite a profit. France should have the cheapest electricity in the EU by far, but it actually sells it at the average EU price, which means all that difference is pure profit. It also exports a lot of this electricity, primarily to Belgium and Germany.
Long-story short, if France loses Niger as a Uranium supplier, its economic rating WILL go down from AA to A, which, along with everything else going on, will trigger a major recession. Germany’s energy needs will also be directly impacted, especially since they are cut off from Russian gas.
So I don’t know much about the Junta in Niger and their intentions, beyond what they’ve already announced publicly, but I do know that France has a vested interest in exploiting Niger. Therefore, any Nigerien government that France doesn’t like, is probably good for the people of Niger.
And lastly, we should remember that what is branded as military coups by the West are sometimes socialist revolutions led by the military. Examples: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Thomas Sankara in (the neighbour of Niger) Burkina Faso.
It seems the coup government enjoys a lot of popular support, as opposed to the previously “elected” government.
I fully expect it to if they publicly frame it as a response to widespread grievances but they’ll have to quickly move to address them lest they lose that support. Junta and “protest” generally don’t mix.
branded as military coups by the West are sometimes socialist revolutions led by the military
True, but Sankara seized powers from other military rulers, not a civilian government. Chavez also won elections before rewriting the Constitution. The “military coups” in Venezuela were generally to ensure democratic institutions and processes were followed since the Venezuelan right wing engages in subverting Bolivaran Constituonal processes.
Not to mention the “democratic” president in custody belongs to a certain arab tribe, which doesn’t even make up 0.1% of the population. This arab tribe was also used by france as foreign mercenaries to beat down any rebellions which happened. This tribe is also immensely rich and powerful. So in sort these guys claim to be democratically elected, but once again the entire democratic process favours this particular group and in return, these guys give wealth to france for them to keep being in power.
I could see similar conditions existing in Niger as in Venezuela and Burkina Faso. As I said, I don’t know much about Niger politics. They do enjoy up to 80% support from their people (according to the Grayzone), which is an extremely high approval rate. I don’t think the previous government was that democratic to begin with.
Next elections weren’t supposed to be until 2025. I hope the military government moves that up.
Semi-related, the idea that a constitution can be suspended via unilateral action in the first place fascinates me. It seems like it relies on weak and dysfunctional courts in order to work.
99.9% good, except Venezuela never had a socialist revolution at all. It’s not socialist now and it never was. Some slight social democrat policies doesn’t make a country socialist. Socialising national resources, building housing, giving economic support to the poor etc. that’s not socialism.
And Hugo Chavez led a coup before becoming president, in the 90s. He came to power democratically.
The Venezuelan government not too long ago said its goal was to develop into a socialist country (which surprised me). Obviously that is only so many words, but that’s better than their absence.
I mean… Chavez said that on his second government. And they didn’t move an inch towards socialism since.
They have their own version of socialism, “bolivarian socialism”, which is basically welfare state and nationalising strategic resources. And that’s it. Like they even enshrine markets and private property as necessary…
As I understand it the French paid the last guy a lot of money to shut down human trafficking. A lot of people in Niger make their money from that and the last guy rather than use the money to create alternative industries people could work in elected to keep the money
I don’t know much about Nigerien politics (btw Nigerian refers to Nigeria), but I’ve been trying to read up since the coup. It seems the coup government enjoys a lot of popular support, as opposed to the previously “elected” government. I’ve seen people claim that the previous elections were a sham, with the winning candidate straight buying up votes with US and French funds, though I don’t have proof for this claim (but seems plausible).
As an outsider looking it, it certainly seems to me that a government that wants to oust French economic and political influence from the country will be far better in improving Nigerien people’s lives rather than a government that is in favour of maintaining French influence in the country.
Niger is a prime example of Parenti’s view “there are no poor countries, there are over-exploited countries”. Niger has rich deposits of Uranium, Gold, precious stones, Oil, and rare minerals.
The reason it has become such a headline is that Niger is France’s prime supplier of Uranium, and France acquires that Uranium at 20% its regular price. France is the EU’s largest producer of electricity from nuclear powerplants. And it sells this electricity at quite a profit. France should have the cheapest electricity in the EU by far, but it actually sells it at the average EU price, which means all that difference is pure profit. It also exports a lot of this electricity, primarily to Belgium and Germany.
Long-story short, if France loses Niger as a Uranium supplier, its economic rating WILL go down from AA to A, which, along with everything else going on, will trigger a major recession. Germany’s energy needs will also be directly impacted, especially since they are cut off from Russian gas.
So I don’t know much about the Junta in Niger and their intentions, beyond what they’ve already announced publicly, but I do know that France has a vested interest in exploiting Niger. Therefore, any Nigerien government that France doesn’t like, is probably good for the people of Niger.
And lastly, we should remember that what is branded as military coups by the West are sometimes socialist revolutions led by the military. Examples: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Thomas Sankara in (the neighbour of Niger) Burkina Faso.
I fully expect it to if they publicly frame it as a response to widespread grievances but they’ll have to quickly move to address them lest they lose that support. Junta and “protest” generally don’t mix.
True, but Sankara seized powers from other military rulers, not a civilian government. Chavez also won elections before rewriting the Constitution. The “military coups” in Venezuela were generally to ensure democratic institutions and processes were followed since the Venezuelan right wing engages in subverting Bolivaran Constituonal processes.
Not to mention the “democratic” president in custody belongs to a certain arab tribe, which doesn’t even make up 0.1% of the population. This arab tribe was also used by france as foreign mercenaries to beat down any rebellions which happened. This tribe is also immensely rich and powerful. So in sort these guys claim to be democratically elected, but once again the entire democratic process favours this particular group and in return, these guys give wealth to france for them to keep being in power.
I could see similar conditions existing in Niger as in Venezuela and Burkina Faso. As I said, I don’t know much about Niger politics. They do enjoy up to 80% support from their people (according to the Grayzone), which is an extremely high approval rate. I don’t think the previous government was that democratic to begin with.
Next elections weren’t supposed to be until 2025. I hope the military government moves that up.
Semi-related, the idea that a constitution can be suspended via unilateral action in the first place fascinates me. It seems like it relies on weak and dysfunctional courts in order to work.
99.9% good, except Venezuela never had a socialist revolution at all. It’s not socialist now and it never was. Some slight social democrat policies doesn’t make a country socialist. Socialising national resources, building housing, giving economic support to the poor etc. that’s not socialism.
And Hugo Chavez led a coup before becoming president, in the 90s. He came to power democratically.
The Venezuelan government not too long ago said its goal was to develop into a socialist country (which surprised me). Obviously that is only so many words, but that’s better than their absence.
I mean… Chavez said that on his second government. And they didn’t move an inch towards socialism since.
They have their own version of socialism, “bolivarian socialism”, which is basically welfare state and nationalising strategic resources. And that’s it. Like they even enshrine markets and private property as necessary…
As I understand it the French paid the last guy a lot of money to shut down human trafficking. A lot of people in Niger make their money from that and the last guy rather than use the money to create alternative industries people could work in elected to keep the money
Was not aware of that. Thanks!
it’s just something someone I was talking to in a pub said this guy likes to follow the news but I haven’t looked into it myself