France is recalling French Ambassador to Niger Sylvain Itte, all staff of the French Embassy, and all French troops in the West African country, President Emmanuel Macron said on Sunday.
“The Ambassador in Niamey, as well as all staff of the embassy, will return to France in the coming weeks or months,” Macron told a French broadcaster.
He added that the military cooperation with Niger is “over” and French troops will leave the country by the end of the year.
“I spoke with President Mohamed Bazoum today and informed him that France has decided to recall its ambassador … We will also put an end to our military cooperation with the current Nigerien authorities because they are no longer aiming to fight terrorism. This is the end of this cooperation, it [the troops withdrawal] will be organized in the coming weeks or months. The troops will return in an organized manner before the end of the year,” Macron said.
Bazoum was deposed as president by his guard during a military takeover in July. France has refused to recognize the new government in Niger, initially ignoring their demands for French troops and the ambassador to leave the country.
Roughly 1,500 French troops are currently deployed in Niger. Despite the move, Macron said he still views Bazoum as the true leader of Niger.
Bazoum has called for his reinstatement, calling for help from the Economic Community of West African States, but two members of the block, Burkina Faso and Mali, signed a defensive pact with the military leadership of Niger and threatened to leave ECOWAS if it took military action against Niger.
The French embassy in Niamey and French military bases have been the focus of mass protests in the capital city.
The European Commission should buy the Ukrainian agricultural produce that the bloc says it doesn’t need and ship it to African countries, Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has said at the UN General Assembly (UNGA).
Western allies have repeatedly accused Moscow of trapping millions of tons of grain in Ukrainian Black Sea ports and of exacerbating a global food crisis, particularly across the African continent.
“Since the European Commission is wasting tens of billions of dollars on Ukraine… it can buy the grain that Ukraine wants to sell and EU countries don’t want [to buy] for reasons of competitiveness, and send it to Africa,” Lavrov told the UNGA.
According to Russia’s top diplomat, Ukrainian agricultural produce is “being supplied to European countries in abundance” but many of them don’t want to buy it, because “they have their own farmers and don’t want them to go bust due to competition.”
He also questioned the integrity of last year’s grain deal, pointing out during his speech at the UN that only 3% of the grain that was moved under this deal had reached the poorest countries in Africa.
In addition, Lavrov said that some 260,000 metric tons of Russian fertilizers have been impounded in EU ports since 2022 and that Moscow was ready to ship these fertilizers to African nations for free.
Russian fertilisers became the crucial point in talks over resuming the Black Sea Grain Deal that was clinched last year between Russia and Ukraine and brokered by the UN and Türkiye. The deal was aimed at allowing Ukraine to export grain from its ports to countries in Asia, the Middle East and Africa, in exchange for lifting Western sanctions that prevented Russian agricultural exports.
However, Moscow withdrew from the agreement in July, saying that the West was still making it impossible for Russia to ship food and fertilizer.
Lavrov said that the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergey Vershinin, is currently discussing the key issues related to the deal with UN representatives. He stressed also that Western states would be misleading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres by saying that the grain deal was about to resume.
According to the minister, the deal can resume once Russia’s demands regarding its agricultural exports are fulfilled.
For instance, in 2018, Gaytandzhieva was expelled from the EU Parliament for confronting the US Assistant Secretary of Health over Pentagon-funded biolabs in 25 countries around the world. Her fascinating and groundbreaking work was smeared by the mainstream propaganda machine as “fake news”, although the high-ranking US official could’ve simply given a short explanation about the “benevolence” that’s taking place in these “biological research facilities”. Gaytandzhieva also broke the story about similar biolabs in Georgia, where she interviewed numerous locals who contracted “mysterious” diseases just because they were living in the vicinity of the “benevolent” facilities.
Namely, the DTRA has been involved in “modernizing and reconstructing” the National Veterinary Research Institute in Vom, central Nigeria. Why would a US Department of Defense (DoD) agency take part in supposedly “non-military” activities that could’ve easily been conducted by public health services? And yet, the involvement of DoD doesn’t stop there, as the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) has been conducting similar activities at the facilities of the Nigerian Defense Ministry, where they’ve been testing particularly dangerous pathogens without notifying local authorities, thereby exposing thousands of regular Nigerians (and possibly millions in the long term) to serious biohazard.
American military virologists in Nigeria are engaged in classified research that involves pathogens that cause tuberculosis, malaria, monkeypox and even COVID-19 and AIDS. Local sources indicate that tens of thousands of samples and genetic materials are being covertly transferred to other US-run biolabs, not only in Nigeria, but also abroad. Needless to say, the risk of causing yet another pandemic of global proportions because of such activities is substantial, even if the research conducted there is as “benevolent” as the Pentagon claims. The complete lack of transparency on the part of the US State Department, even toward the host country, only further reinforces this notion.
Frequent rotation of military personnel involved in the controversial “research” can only be described as an attempt to better conceal the nature of the Pentagon’s bioweapons program in Nigeria. What’s more, the recommendations of specialists from other US agencies, such as the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), actually lead to a worsening of the epidemiological situation in Nigeria, including an increase in cases of Ebola, Lassa, Crimean-Congo and similar types of hemorrhagic fever, as well as other dangerous diseases. Nigerian military personnel are probably the most vulnerable category, as the Pentagon exerts substantial control over Nigeria’s military and medical system.
Apart from DTRA, other US agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USAID (US Agency for International Development) have varying degrees of involvement. Under the pretext of “improving the sanitary and epidemiological situation” in Nigeria, the US government is exerting a tremendous amount of control over the country’s bioscientific infrastructure. The European Union is also cooperating with its US counterparts, although the troubled bloc disguises the involvement of its agencies by presenting it as a “humanitarian” effort. Unfortunately, Nigerian authorities are either unaware or are turning a blind eye to the fact that their citizens are effectively being used as guinea pigs.
These activities only serve to create conditions for conducting more effective dual-use “biological research”, the purposes of which are beneficial not only to the interests of the Pentagon, but also the so-called Big Pharma. All of the aforementioned pathogens (in addition to numerous others) are a deadly biohazard that endangers the lives of not only millions of Nigerians, but billions of people in Africa and around the world. The question is – cui bono? Well, it’s certainly not the Nigerian people (or any other for that matter). However, taking into account the astronomical profit margins of American and other Western pharmaceutical corporations, we get the idea of who does.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
After shunning COVID vaccines during the early pandemic response, Tanzania became a natural experiment for all-cause mortality rates. Compared to large U.S. states like Texas and California, Tanzania, with one of the lowest COVID vaccination rates in the world, succeeded in having one of the lowest all-cause mortality rates on earth, through the worst of the pandemic.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 14, 2023
Citing a public health emergency, New Mexico governor Michelle Grisham revoked the 2nd amendment rights of residents of her state this week. After citing that constitutional rights and oaths taken by public officials were not “absolute”, she was quickly condemned by some of the highest officials in the state.
The leaders of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have signed a charter establishing an alliance of Sahel states to create a collective defense architecture, Mali’s interim president for the transitional period, Assimi Goita, said on Saturday.
“I have signed today with the leaders of Burkina Faso and Niger the Liptako Gourma Charter, establishing the Alliance of Sahel States to create an architecture of collective defense and mutual assistance for the benefit of our people,” Goita said on X.
An attack on the sovereignty or territorial integrity of one or more parties to the charter will be regarded as aggression against the other parties and will require their assistance, including the use of military force, the document read.
The parties also commit to fighting terrorism and organized crime on the territory of Sahel states, the charter added.
Burkina Faso has notified France of the expulsion of the embassy’s military attaché for “subversive activities,” weeks after Niger ordered the European country’s ambassador to leave.
In a letter seen by AFP on Friday, Burkina Faso’s foreign ministry warned that attaché Emmanuel Pasquier and his team had two weeks to leave the Sahel nation where military leaders last year twice toppled pro-France governments.
The ministry letter added that the French military mission in Ouagadougou would be closed.
France pulled out troops from its former colony in the face of mounting hostility after Captain Ibrahim Traore seized power in September 2022.
France’s foreign ministry rejected the accusation.
“The accusation of subversive activities is obviously fanciful,” a foreign ministry spokesperson told AFP in Paris.
After the September coup, France recalled its ambassador from Ouagadougou and has not replaced the envoy. Burkina Faso is also unlikely to let the envoy come back.
Burkina Faso’s military leaders have suspended the French TV outlets LCI and France24 as well as Radio France Internationale (RFI) and expelled the correspondents of the French newspapers Liberation and Le Monde over their “subversive activities.”
Burkina Faso’s military chief Traore last week gave an interview saying Burkina was not “the enemy of the French people” but of the policies of its government.
“We have to accept seeing each other as equals… and accept an overhaul of our entire cooperation,” he said on state television.
Anger within the armed forces led to a coup on January 24, 2022, toppling pro-France president Roch Marc Christian Kabore.
On September 30, Kabore’s nemesis, Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba, was himself overthrown by the 34-year-old Traore, who has promised a return to democracy with presidential elections by July 2024.
Traore in July met Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia-Africa summit in Saint Petersburg and followed up with talks in August with a Russian delegation on development and military cooperation.
Foreign Minister Olivia Rouamba on Monday said Burkina needed to “strengthen bilateral cooperation” with Iran and President Ebrahim Raeisi.
Meanwhile, Niger’s military leaders gave the French ambassador a 48-hour ultimatum to leave the country in August, but French President Emmanuel Macron refused to comply or to recognize the legitimacy of the military rulers.
At the end of August, the military rulers revoked the diplomatic immunity of the ambassador and ordered the police to expel him from the country.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed a presidential “finding” under the National Security Act authorizing the CIA to conduct a nonlethal campaign to support democratic resistance to the communist Dergs and the CIA budgeted 500,000 dollars a year to help the Ethiopian People’s Democratic Alliance conduct a worldwide propaganda war against the Marxist government. This group was led by wealthy Ethiopian landowners who had fled their nation after the communists seized their property.
Reagan labeled Ethiopia a threat to the world, and was one of four nations he targeted for regime change. Reagan wanted to arm Ethiopian “freedom fighters” as part of the “Reagan Doctrine,” a concerted effort to roll back Soviet gains in the Third World, but the US Congress refused to provide funds. As a result, the CIA raised funds itself.
It is unknown if the CIA worked with its friends in Hollywood to create the 1985 “We Are the World – Live Aid” fundraiser, or just diverted the money flow. Most evidence comes from a March 3, 2010 report by Martin Plaut of the BBC that published evidence millions of dollars worth of aid for the Ethiopian famine were diverted to buy weapons by the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, a CIA backed group trying to overthrow the Ethiopian communist government. Rebel soldiers said they posed as grain merchants to receive cash they used to buy arms. The report cited a declassified CIA document saying aid was “almost certainly being diverted for military purposes.” One rebel leader estimated 95 of the 100 million dollars raised by the charity effort was used to buy weaponry.
“Ethiopian Famine Aid Spent on Weapons”; Martin Plaut, BBC; March 3, 2010; this is the “corrected” article from months later after the BBC editorial board reacted to threats for printing the truth; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/853…
The July military coup in the west African country of Niger has once again brought attention to the fact that the US government runs a global military empire that serves Washington’s special interests, and not the national interest.
Before the coup made news headlines, most Americans – including many serving in Congress – had no idea the US government maintains more than 1,000 troops stationed on several US bases in Niger. But it’s even worse than that. A recent report in The Intercept suggests the Pentagon repeatedly misled Congress about the extent and the cost of the US presence in Niger.
According to The Intercept, “in testimony before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in March, the chief of US Africa Command described Air Base 201 (in Niger) as ‘minimal’ and ‘low cost.’” In fact the US government has spent a quarter of a billion dollars on the base since construction began in 2016.
So when did Congress declare war so as to legalize US military operations in Niger? They didn’t. But as Kelley Vlahos writes in Responsible Statecraft, US troops have been “training” the military in Niger since 2013 and the US government has constructed a number of military bases to “fight terrorism” in the country and region.
Does that mean that the Pentagon is operating in Niger under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) meant to track down those who attacked the US on 9/11? It’s a good question and thankfully one being asked by Sen. Rand Paul in a recent letter sent to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Senator Paul first pointed out in the letter, “the Administration’s limitless interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF and frequent use of Title 10 authorities results in military operations abroad conducted with little Congressional oversight and even less public scrutiny.” Such actions “undermine our Constitution,” he writes as he asks, “in how many countries are US forces conducting operations authorized by the 2001 AUMF.”
Ironically – or maybe not – one of the coup leaders in NIger had been trained by the Pentagon at Ft. Benning, Georgia, and at the National Defense University in Washington, DC. What is the US government training foreign military officers to do, exactly? Overthrow their own governments?
Whatever the case, it appears the coup government in Niger may be seeking a withdrawal of foreign military on its soil. Mass protests against French military presence has led the French government to begin talks with the coup government on withdrawal. There are rumors that the coup government may next request US troops to leave the country.
We should pre-empt their possible request by withdrawing all US troops immediately from Niger (and the rest of Africa) and closing all military bases. The claim that the US government is fighting terrorism in the area is doubtful. After all, in both Libya and in Syria the US government backed terrorist groups against governments it sought to overthrow. President Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan famously wrote to his then-boss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 that, “in Syria, al-Qaeda is on our side.”
Congress must step up and exercise its oversight authority to end the counter-productive US military presence in Africa. Our military empire is bankrupting us and turning the rest of the world against us.
The US military maintains a string of bases spanning the Sahel region of Africa. Tunde Osazua, coordinator of the US Out of Africa Network — part of the Black Alliance for Peace — said they amounted to a military occupation of the continent.
The US Department of Defense has lied to Congress about its shady activities in Africa — funded by taxpayers. Peace campaigner Tunde Osazua told Sputnik that the US Department of Defense was not coming clean to legislators about its network of bases across the continent.
Osazua explained that General Michael Langley, commander of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), had briefed Congress on the military’s facilities in Africa, including the ‘enduring forward operating sites’ at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti and the Cat Hill air base on Ascension Island, the tiny British South Atlantic colony, along with 12 other “posture locations”.
“He claimed that those locations have minimal permanent US presence and low cost facilities and limited supplies for the US forces The soldiers and their personnel are there to perform critical missions and quickly respond to emergencies,” he noted.
“Experts say that he misled Congress, that AFRICOM’s chief basically lied about the size and the scope of the US presence on the African continent,” Osazua said. “Instead of 12 posture locations there are no less than 18 outposts in addition to Camp Lemonnier.”
“This is according to what AFRICOM itself released in its own secret 2022 Theater Posture Plan, which I think might even understate the current footprint of AFRICOM on the continent.” In fact, peace group World Beyond War has listed around 55 US military installations in Africa, he pointed out.
The anti-imperialist campaigner said the Pentagon was “essentially lying to Congress about this.”
“They’re trying to say that they’re doing a lot with very few resources when there’s a lot of funding for… what is military occupation,” Osazua said. “it’s clear that the US military activity on the continent is extensive. A few years ago a report came out that said that there are close to 3,500 missions per year that the AFRICOM takes part in on the continent. That’s close to ten missions a day.”
The commentator noted that the west African state of Niger had become “a particular point of focus” since the recent military takeover, with former colonial power France refusing to evacuate its troops and embassy and some of its compliant governments in the region threatening military intervention.
AFRICOM’s Airbase 201 is also in Niger, featuring a 6,200-foot runway taxiways, hangars, living quarters, roads, utilities, munitions, storage, an aircraft rescue and firefighting station — all within a 25-kilometer security zone.
But Osazua stressed “how the people and the government have responded to US and French military presence on their soil, which again amounts to a basically military occupation.”
A new grain agreement initiated by Moscow may partly add to resolving the problem of hunger across the globe, Russian analysts have told Sputnik.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has heaped praise on a joint project between Moscow, Ankara and Doha on Russian grain supplies to Turkiye.
The ministry said in a statement that “the project to deliver one million tons of grain from Russia for processing in Turkiye with subsequent free transportation to the poorest countries is of utmost importance.”
The statement came after Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told reporters that Moscow and Ankara had reached an agreement.
“This is a good initiative, and the right process,” Moscow-based political analyst Alexander Asafov said, describing the deal as an example of international cooperation that “takes into account promoting Turkiye’s interests with the help of Qatar,” which “will act as the agreement’s financial contributor.”
Asafov noted that although the deal would unlikely become a “game-changer” in terms of tackling the problem of hunger globally, it “will, of course, improve the situation in those countries where grain will be delivered to.”
When asked about the prospect of the initiative, the analyst said that the agreement “confirms the logic of a multipolar world, where the parties, without fear of sanctions or other pressure, can conclude two, three or more deals, contrary to the opinion of the side that until recently considered itself global cop,” an apparent nod to the US.
Asafov was echoed by Victor Nadein-Raevskiy, a senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences, who underscored that Russia initiated the Moscow-Ankara-Doha initiative after the suspension of the Black Sea Grain Deal. According to him, Moscow offered the accord proceeding from the fact that developing countries, who are “going through really great food problems, should not suffer.”
Actually, “this agreement is no longer a deal, but a humanitarian program to deliver grain – to be more exact, flour – to those countries that are in need of it,” Nadein-Raevskiy stressed. He added that transportation-related expenses would be on Qatar, who “enthusiastically joined the agreement.”
Touching upon the prospects of the initiative, the expert pointed out that first and foremost, it’s necessary to assess the effectiveness of the project as such.
“If we and our partners in Turkiye and Qatar manage to implement our plans, namely, if the deal is successful, then, of course, Russia will use its great opportunities on grain exports market,” he said.
Scheme’s Details to Follow
The issue was on the agenda of talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi on September 4.
“We expect that in the near future we will begin discussions with all parties to work out all the technical aspects of the scheme of such supplies,” Grushko said, adding that the technical details include, among other issues, logistics and finances.
Erdogan, for his part, signaled Ankara’s readiness to prepare its own proposals on the matter and to “find a solution in the near future” that will meet the expectations of all parties to the talks.
Nadein-Raevskiy noted in this vein that Turkiye is “ready” for flour supplies to developing countries “at very low prices or on the free-of-charge basis.”
“One should not think that Turkiye is a country that does everything only for its own benefit. While strengthening Turkish positions in Africa and beyond ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic, Turkiye – as far as I remember – spent up to $3 billion a year on humanitarian programs,” the expert emphasized.
The deal comes after Moscow suspended its participation in the Black Sea grain deal, also known as the Black Sea Grain Initiative, on July 18. The Kremlin has repeatedly emphasized that the Turkiye and UN-mediated grain deal’s component on facilitating Russian grain and fertilizer exports was not fulfilled, specifically with regard to reconnecting Russian banks to SWIFT and unblocking the Tolyatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline.
Moscow also pointed out that just three percent of the grain shipped out of Ukraine under the agreement actually went to countries in need in Africa and Asia, with the vast majority instead ending up in Europe and Turkiye.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later stressed that the proposals made by the United Nations regarding the resumption of the Black Sea Grain Initiative lack guarantees when it comes to Russia’s concerns.
Whilst it has become clear to increasing numbers of people in the West that something has gone terribly wrong with the élites’ Ukraine project, and that the exaggerated predictions and expectations of Russian forces being ‘knocked for six’ by an armoured ‘fist’ have proved spectacularly wrong, those same élites are going wrong again – on another strategically decisive issue: They again largely ignore ‘reality’ – for the sake of control of the ‘narrative’. In this case, the West prefers to sneer at the implications of the new accessions to BRICS (let alone the other 40 states ready to join): ‘Nothing to see there’.
The BRICS is just a jumble of states lacking any cohesion, or common thread, western MSM proclaims. It can never challenge the U.S. global power, nor the sheer financial weight of the dollar sphere. However, China’s Global Times explains in mild tones, a different backdrop:
“The reason why the BRICS mechanism has such great appeal … reflects a general disappointment of many developing countries with the global governance system dominated and interfered by the U.S. and the West. As China has repeatedly emphasized, the traditional global governing system has become dysfunctional, deficient and missing in action, and the international community urgently expects the BRICS mechanism to strengthen unity and cooperation”.
Others in the Global South say it more starkly: The BRICS mechanism is seen as a means to slough off the last vestiges of western colonialism and to acquire autonomy. Yes, of course, BRICS 11 initially will be more cacophony than smooth opera, but nonetheless, it represents a profound shift of global consciousness.
BRICS 11 establishes a pole of influence and global heft that has the potential to eclipse in scope that of the G7.
The ‘mess’ in Ukraine is commonly attributed to mere ‘miscalculation’ by the western élites: They did not expect Russian society to be so robust, nor so steadfast under pressure.
Yet this was no minor ‘slip up’ by the West, since the recognition of NATO’s doctrinal contradictions, its second-rate weaponry and its inability to think rigorously – beyond tomorrow’s sound-bite – has (inadvertently) shone the spotlight on the deeper dysfunction within the West – one that runs far deeper than just the situation around the Ukraine project. Many in the West see major institutions of society locked within suffocating orthodoxy; in an intense level of political and cultural polarisation; and with political reform effectively locked-down.
The proxy war on Russia nevertheless was launched through Ukraine, precisely to reaffirm western global vigour. It is doing the opposite.
The financial war (as opposed to the ground war in Ukraine) was the counter-play to generating regime change in Moscow: Financial war was intended to underline the futility of opposing the sheer ‘muscle’ that dollar hegemony – acting in concert – represented. It was the jealous hegemon demanding obeisance.
But this back-fired spectacularly. And this has directly contributed not just to the expansion of BRICS, but to the energy resources of the Middle East and the raw materials of Africa sliding out of western control. Rather than the western scatter-gun threats of sanctions and financial ostracisation creating fear and reaffirming obsequiousness, the threats contrarily, have mobilised anti-colonial sentiments across the globe; fed the understanding that the western financial construct amounted to tutelage, and that any acquisition of sovereignty required the act of de-dollarisation.
And here, again, egregious mistakes were committed: Errors of geo-strategic magnitude were embarked upon almost casually, and without due diligence.
The primordial mistake was that of Team Biden (and the EU) illegally seizing Russia’s overseas reserve assets; expelling Russia from the financial clearing system, SWIFT; and imposing a trade blockade so complete that (it was hoped in the White House) its effects would tear down President Putin. The rest of world understood – they easily could be next. They needed a sphere that was resistant to western financial predations.
Yet, the second strategic error by Biden (& Co.) magnified the error of their initial ‘unprecedented’ financial blitz. This blunder marked the ‘second shoe to drop’ in Biden’s de-fenestration of the American financial imperium: He treated Mohammad bin Salman (and the Saudis generally) with contemptuousness: ordering them to increase oil production (in order to bring down the price of gasoline before the mid-term Congressional elections), and disdainfully threatening the kingdom with “consequences”, were it to fail to comply.
Perhaps Biden, so consumed with his electoral prospects, did not think it through. Even now, it is not clear that the White House understands the consequences of it having treated MbS as some aberrant underling. There is an eleventh-hour attempt to dissuade Saudi from joining BRICS, but it is too late. It’s application to join has been approved and will take effect from 1 January 2024. The West misread the mood.
The shared ethos within Gulf states is one of self-assured, assertive leaders, who are no longer willing to accept binary ‘with us or against us’ U.S. demands.
For the avoidance of mis-understanding, Biden, through the combination of these two strategic mistakes, has launched the West’s financial hegemony onto a slipway leading to incremental unwinding of much of the $32 trillion of foreign investment in fiat dollars which has accumulated in the U.S. system over the last 52 years – with an implicit acceleration towards ‘own currency trading’ amongst the majority of non-western states.
Ultimately this likely will lead to a BRICS trade settlement medium – possibly anchored to gold. Were a trading currency to be anchored in some way to a gram of gold, that currency would, of course, acquire status as a store of value, based on that of the underlying commodity (in this case gold).
The point here is that when inflation was zero-bound, U.S. Treasury bonds were seen as a store of (enduring) value. However, wide de-dollarisation undermines the synthetic (i.e. the imposed) demand for dollars that owed entirely to the Bretton Woods and the Petro-dollar frameworks (that demanded that commodities be traded only in U.S. dollars) and to the implicit understanding that U.S. Treasuries offered a certain store of value.
But what did Team Biden do? They have driven Saudi Arabia – the lynchpin to the Petro-dollar, and one of the pillars (together with other Gulf States and China) underpinning the huge holdings of U.S. Treasury debt – into the arms of BRICS. Put simply, the BRICS 11 incorporates six out of nine of the top global energy producers, as well as the principal energy consumers. OPEC+, in effect, has been swallowed to make a self-enclosed, self-sufficient circle of trading in energy (and raw materials) that does not need to touch dollars. And over time, this will amount to a major monetary shock.
The ‘consequences’ threatened towards Saudi Arabia by the White House have been rendered inconsequential. Saudi and Iran can sell their oil to other BRICS consumers (in non-dollar currencies). Members no longer need to be so concerned at western threats – one of the key provisions of BRICS is the joint refusal of all members to permit or facilitate any ‘regime change’ manoeuvres against BRICS members.
To be clear, what this all means is further price inflation in the West, reflecting the falling purchasing power of fiat currencies as dollar-demand subsides. Inevitably, a weakening dollar will lead to higher interest rates in the U.S. This – simply – will be one major consequence of de-dollarisation. Higher interest rates will impose great stress on the U.S. and European banks.
The first BRICS 11 summit is set for October 2023 in Kazan. By ‘coincidence’, full membership of the new states will coincide with Russia taking the rotating annual presidency of the BRICS on 1 January 2024. Putin already has made clear his determination to move towards resolving the complexities of a separate BRICS currency – “one way or another”.
It was earlier assessed that “The AU-ECOWAS Rift Over Niger Was Predictable” due to their differing approaches towards the continent’s latest regime change. The AU believes that its ousted leader should be returned to power via peaceful means while ECOWAS’ active members are in favor of forcefully reimposing his rule. Neither of them support the interim authorities’ three-year transitional plan, however, with ECOWAS rejecting it outright and the AU suspending Niger right afterwards.
The AU also “called upon all Member States of the AU and the international community including bilateral and multilateral partners, at large to reject this unconstitutional change of government and to refrain from any action likely to grant legitimacy to the illegal regime in Niger.” This came shortly after reports began circulating that neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali, which are also run by interim military-led governments, stationed warplanes in Niger to deter a French-backedNigerian-ledECOWAS invasion.
Late last week, those three countries’ Foreign Ministers met in Niamey, where they issued a joint statement that importantly declared the following:
“The three countries have agreed to grant each other facilities for mutual assistance in matters of defense and security in the event of aggression or terrorist attacks. They have decided to set up a consultation framework that allows them to coordinate their actions in order to deal with the multiple situations and challenges to which they are exposed. This consultation framework remains open to countries wishing to participate in this dynamic in order to respond to the concerns and needs of their populations in terms of peace, security and economic and monetary development. To this end, they agreed to set up a Joint Secretariat.”
Simply put, they’ve established a regional mutual defense alliance (“Sahelian Alliance”) that’ll also aim to accelerate political and economic-financial integration between them.
Before delving into a discussion about which of the three organizations involved in the West African Crisis – the AU, ECOWAS, and the Sahelian Alliance – truly represent the Nigerien people’s sovereign will, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s detailed reaction to that country’s regime change is worth mentioning. It can be read in full here, but he basically concluded that the region’s interim military-led governments sought to rebalance their prior leaderships’ relations with the West for the betterment of their people.
That observation segues into the subject of this analysis since it lends credence to the views shared by Burkinabe leader Ibrahim Traore during late July’s Second Russia-Africa Summit in St. Petersburg. While speaking among those of his fellow African leaders who were brave enough to resist Western pressure to attend, he still lambasted many of them for being imperialist puppets due to their opposition to his interim military-led government after it was suspended from the AU and ECOWAS.
His country’s people and those of similarly military-ruled Guinea, Mali, and now Niger all rallied behind their armed forces after they overthrew their French puppet leaderships, yet each were still punished by those two organizations to different extents, with Niger now facing the threat of invasion. It stands to reason that all of these interim military-led governments genuinely enjoy grassroots support otherwise there’d be Color Revolution attempts and even anti-state rebellions/insurgencies/terrorist campaigns.
To be sure, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger – which have now joined forces to become the Sahelian Alliance – are indeed facing terrorist threats, but they’re derived from a radical ideological virus that predates their respective military coups and aren’t a result of those regime changes. The AU represents the African Establishment, however, whose members fear being overthrown by their own armed forces. For that reason, it always opposes coups even if they’re popular among the people.
The same can be said about ECOWAS’ stance since it’s pretty much just a regionally focused version of the AU that represents the West African Establishment more so than the West African people. Since the Nigerien coup is the fourth one to take place in the ambit of its influence, the non-suspended members of the group are more worried than the distant AU is about the possibility of a so-called “domino effect”, ergo why they’re threatening the use of force to reverse the situation while the AU remains against it.
Both organizations prioritize the interests of their elite members, the African Establishment as a whole in the AU’s case and the West African one in ECOWAS’, over those of the people that they claim to represent. This explains why they’re not only against the Nigerien coup, but why the AU told others not to legitimize it while ECOWAS is threatening an invasion. Although Russia is formally opposed to it and any anti-constitutional regime change too, Moscow’s stance is much more pragmatic than theirs.
Post-coup Mali became one of Russia’s closest military partners on the continent behind the Central African Republic, while Burkina Faso is considering following in its neighbor’s footsteps after Interim President Traore declared earlier this spring that he considers Russia his country’s strategic ally. These two Sahelian security relationships are flourishing in spite of Moscow having opposed their anti-constitutional regime changes since it believes in cooperating with them during their transitions.
By contrast, the AU and ECOWAS are against third parties legitimizing the post-coup leaderships of those countries who they’ve suspended even though the aforesaid could advance everyone’s objective interests like in the Russian example of helping Mali and Burkina Faso fight transnational terrorists. Once again, it’s important to remind the reader that neither those two, Guinea, or Niger experienced any Color Revolution attempts or serious anti-state violence, thus confirming popular support for their rulers.
All factors considered, the AU and ECOWAS are arguably against the sovereign will of the Nigerien people whereas that country’s interim military-led authorities, the newly formed Sahelian Alliance, and Russia all embody it on the national, regional, and international levels. The first of those three carried out their coup for patriotic reasons aimed at realizing their people’s desire for true sovereignty after languishing under France’s neo-colonial occupation for decades as de facto slaves.
The second’s allies experienced their own patriotic military coups for the same reason and then sought to pool their forces to deter imperialist puppets like ECOWAS’ remaining members. As for Russia’s interests, it pragmatically decided to help these post-coup countries’ leaderships fight transnational terrorism since it’s in their own people’s, the region’s, and all of Africa’s interests. These three – Niger’s new authorities, the Sahelian Alliance, and Russia – are the true vanguards of sovereignty in West Africa.
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.