West African Crisis

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What's the background here? I know very little about Niger.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's an interesting comment on how little many self-professed Third Worldists actually care about Africans that they regard military coups against democratically-elected governments to be good things. It is true, of course, that there is not a single democracy in Africa that is not severely flawed, and this is very unfortunate, but the record of military rule across the continent has been baleful in the extreme. Even flawed, imperfect and partial (yes even partial) democracies are infinitely preferable to the return of rule by the Big Man and his pack of colonels. We all know how this story ends. We've all seen it enough.

Self-determination in the Third World is when generals overthrow elected governments. The less color of law they have in doing so, the self-determineder it is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's an interesting comment on how little many self-professed Third Worldists actually care about Africans that they regard military coups against democratically-elected governments to be good things. It is true, of course, that there is not a single democracy in Africa that is not severely flawed, and this is very unfortunate, but the record of military rule across the continent has been baleful in the extreme. Even flawed, imperfect and partial (yes even partial) democracies are infinitely preferable to the return of rule by the Big Man and his pack of colonels. We all know how this story ends. We've all seen it enough.

Self-determination in the Third World is when generals overthrow elected governments. The less color of law they have in doing so, the self-determineder it is.

Words with no substance all you have?

I don't understand what you're accusing me of.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Africa's problems are deep-rooted and multi-faceted, I don't think we can necessarily call this coup clearly good or bad simply from the process it followed. Not only are African state institutions weak compared to other parts of the world (military or otherwise), but there's a long track record of Africans getting failed by all sorts of governments.

I think sometimes people focus too much on trying to put something in a box of “good” or “bad” that they miss the point on how history isn’t as linear and simplistic like they act. Not everything is a Marvel movie.

You can make the point for example, that the coup prejudices situation of democracy and regional stability while recognizing situation already wasn’t good in the first place and many people will naturally demand for any change that presents itself as an alternative.

Whether the new government will be better or worse than the previous one, is something no one knows in advance.

There are probably some coups which have ultimately been beneficial to the country in question (though Rawlings in Ghana is literally the only one that I can think of as far as West Africa is concerned). But it is pretty clear than every single one of the coups that have occured in the Sahel region since over the past couple of years have been done for selfish reasons and haven't materially improved the lives of the citizens there (in fact, they have worsened it).

There is/was also a fair amount of protest against this one within Niger, so it seems demonstrably wrong to surmise that the country was just chomping at the bit for it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So it seems like the Nigerian senate has ruled out military intervention. Pretty humiliating for Tinubu. A diplomatic solution obviously won't work (we literally have three recent examples in the same region to know that it won't) which means that ECOWAS will now have four suspended member-states (Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Niger). Four members is probably enough to create a "coup d'état" union between themselves lol. Poor ECOWAS, that organization is pretty much useless at this point.

This is over unless France decides to intervene.

Hopefully it won't come to that. My housemate, an IR person, suggested the generals may be willing to talk concessions or power-sharing at some point given that they haven't killed or exiled Bazoum.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Africa's problems are deep-rooted and multi-faceted, I don't think we can necessarily call this coup clearly good or bad simply from the process it followed. Not only are African state institutions weak compared to other parts of the world (military or otherwise), but there's a long track record of Africans getting failed by all sorts of governments.

I think sometimes people focus too much on trying to put something in a box of “good” or “bad” that they miss the point on how history isn’t as linear and simplistic like they act. Not everything is a Marvel movie.

You can make the point for example, that the coup prejudices situation of democracy and regional stability while recognizing situation already wasn’t good in the first place and many people will naturally demand for any change that presents itself as an alternative.

Whether the new government will be better or worse than the previous one, is something no one knows in advance.

The content of this post is offensively stupid.

There's nothing like the freezing cold takes of the "foreign policy left" to drive home just how bad at distinguishing between moral principles and deductive applications of those principles many people are. Powers like the US and France have generally been malign actors in West Africa because of things that they have done that are bad; "being a malign actor in West Africa" is not "that which powers like the US and France do," since actors in West Africa that are not those powers might, and do, also do bad things. Somehow the difference escapes countless people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm sure Nigeriens are extremely concerned by how many Reddit Freedom Points™ some Western think tank awards their country.

It will never not amaze me how the people who make such a big fuss over "democracy" simultaneously have no issue with the violent subjugation of the majority of humanity.

Nothing surprises me from liberals nowadays, regardless if they identify as left or right. They only really have theoretical concepts and speeches to validate their politics because they simply have zero to offer to people’s concrete needs and real life practical issues.

What are the generals offering Nigeriens' concrete needs that the Bazoum administration wasn't? Be specific.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's awfully rich of you to insist that the other people in this thread are unconcerned with the material situation when you're the one ignoring the ample evidence that the Nigerien people do not want this and instead philosophizing about whether there's really any first-principles moral difference between democracy and military dictatorship. It's especially curious to see this from a Brazilian leftist of all nationalities and political leanings. I'm not going to accept the idea that it's morally neutral for a cadre of generals to overthrow an elected President (an elected socialist President, no less) no matter how many times you throw around the phrase "Marvel movie" or use "liberal" as a contentless snarl term. I'm also not going to accept the idea that the Cuban Revolution is a reasonable point of comparison here, unless it's a joke that you were trying to make that didn't land. Do you think Batista somehow had better democratic credentials than Castro?

I absolutely think it's an indictment of Western reporting on Africa (such as it is) that most of us, myself included, were unfamiliar with Niger and its politics before this started, but I've appreciated the opportunity to read up on the country and the region and come to my own conclusions about what is happening there. I hope you're genuinely not aware of how hypocritical and insulting it is of you to refuse to accept that I and others are actually thinking about this in a meaningful way rather than defaulting to the positions that our own world-historically turboevil countries have programmed into us or something. The alternative to you not be aware of that is far, far worse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This thread has gone wildly off topic.

It'd be nice if Red Velvet spent half as much time discussing Ukraine in the Ukraine threads as he's spending discussing Ukraine in the Niger thread, yeah.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway back to this threads actual topic https://twitter.com/casusbellii/status/1688309963645448192?s=12

Is Tinubu just going in anyway?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Now that the deadline has passed is there any chance any ECOWAS states still go ahead with the intervention?

The junta seems to still think it's possible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Blinken says US backs ECOWAS efforts on Niger

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1689754396521824256

Good, but I'm hoping actual US forces stay out of it, for a number of reasons.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, if western puppets invade Niger there will be rebellions in their respective countries. Despite the childish naivety of the usual illiterate pro NATO posters, most Africans detest the West and this will be seen as an imperialist effort.

Vibes good today, man?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The only interesting thing in the apparent West African War is whether Nigeria's oil installations get bombed by drones, like the Arab ones in the Yemen War.

That's the only interesting thing? Really?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

just because a President with a D next to their name on the ballot is president

Don't you play that card with me, you presumptuous f**kwit. My position on international issues has been clear and unwavering for over a decade now. I know you can't conceive of someone having a principled stance on democracy because your only criterion for assessing a regime is which geopolitical block it belongs to, but you could try to be a bit less lazy with your mischaracterizations.

*Which geopolitical bloc it has the vibes of belonging to. The junta is frothingly anti-French, which is frankly one of the least unreasonable things about it (no offense), but it has not taken any steps to remove US forces and indeed some Moustache of Understanding or other at the Atlantic Council was saying just earlier today that the junta is here to stay and the US should lean into it as a partner. But no, it has black guys with medals involved so it must be anti-American and thus Good.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

just because a President with a D next to their name on the ballot is president

Don't you play that card with me, you presumptuous f**kwit. My position on international issues has been clear and unwavering for over a decade now. I know you can't conceive of someone having a principled stance on democracy because your only criterion for assessing a regime is which geopolitical block it belongs to, but you could try to be a bit less lazy with your mischaracterizations.

Oh honey get your eyes checked, you clearly need it if you think I look like you or spelled out your self-projection.

That's a lot of words for what amounts to a "no you". But I guess you've always excelled at finding the most verbose way to phrase childish thoughts.

After a while of being around pretentious idiots you have to at least have fun in making your point.

just because a President with a D next to their name on the ballot is president

Don't you play that card with me, you presumptuous f**kwit. My position on international issues has been clear and unwavering for over a decade now. I know you can't conceive of someone having a principled stance on democracy because your only criterion for assessing a regime is which geopolitical block it belongs to, but you could try to be a bit less lazy with your mischaracterizations.

*Which geopolitical bloc it has the vibes of belonging to. The junta is frothingly anti-French, which is frankly one of the least unreasonable things about it (no offense), but it has not taken any steps to remove US forces and indeed some Moustache of Understanding or other at the Atlantic Council was saying just earlier today that the junta is here to stay and the US should lean into it as a partner. But no, it has black guys with medals involved so it must be anti-American and thus Good.

Well yes, which is why the sanctions and condemnation is called for because military men acting outside civilian government are never good, but starting a massive war to destroy the country just so France could have uranium below their value price and maintain their masculinity as a relevant international power is not a good idea.

If our government falls for the bait again and causes another massive war where the only winners are criminals smuggling out minerals for guns, I expect Biden to apologize and get angry that France caused another Libyan disaster.

Speaking of taking purely vibes-based and aesthetic sides in conflicts, it might be worth considering that "the coup was a bad thing but poorly-considered intervention seems like it will be even worse" is, while not Antonio's position, perhaps not quite as worth castigating him for disagreeing with as you seem to think it is. I don't think yours is a position that he went into this argument regarding with the same lack of respect, since he understands perfectly well the prudential arguments against any given Western intervention even though he's fine with such interventions in principle.