"What is the French army doing in Africa?"

In the name of fighting terrorism, the writer said, France is aiming to gain political influence through military operation in Africa,  the French writer Raphael Granvaud said.

"France's military operations in Africa are not legitimate," he said. Instead of solving problems, Granvaud said, France is creating "troubles" in the countries where it intervenes militarily. "For example, about the Operation Licorne in the Ivory Coast in 2002, France had said these were humanitarian operations and aimed to prevent genocide, but we saw when the operations concluded, France did not solve any problems," he added. Speaking about the Operation Sangaris in Central African Republic, the writer said no problems were solved in the country and the militias there also did not leave their weapons.

The military operations launched by France in the African continent led to civilian causalities which are kept hidden by the country. The number of civilian causalities as a result of the military operations in Africa for nearly 50 years are "unclear as there is no research or extensive knowledge about it".

"The French army is doing everything it takes to hide civilian casualties, this is why we do not know the exact number of civilian casualties caused by the military operations by France," he said.

Granvaud said that the investigation into the deaths as a result of France’s military operations claimed there were no civilian casualties occurred.

"It is clear that France's military operations in Africa led to civilian casualties," he added.  Granvaud said that there could also be other crimes committed by French soldiers, adding the military hid the fact that children were subjected to rape during Operation Sangaris in Central African Republic.

"France has only intervened in Africa to defend its interests, so France will be the last country to launch a military operation to solve the problems in Africa," he said. Granvaud said if France would have wanted to conduct a neutral intervention in Africa, it would have put its troops at the service of the United Nations.

Granvaud stated that the "Operation Serval" in Mali is an example to show France’s economic dimension behind its operations on the African content. In January 2013, France launched its "Operation Serval" against several militant groups in the country's north that ended in July 2014.

With its colonial activities dating back to 1524, France dominated more than 20 countries in the west and north of Africa. Between 1962 and 2011, France conducted 228 military operations worldwide including in Africa. Since August 2014, nearly 4,000 French troops have been deployed in five West African countries -- including Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Chad -- to help fight against militant groups in the Sahel region, especially in Mali.

https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/french-military-causes-civilian-casualties-in-africa-3207972

French Africa - Francafrique

Currently, France has over 3,000 troops spread across five countries in Africa — Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad — as part of Operation Burkhane, based in Chad. France also pushed heavily for intervention in Libya during the the country's uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, and has been involved in peacekeeping operations in various African countries. France was decisively behind the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya during the Arab Spring uprisings against Muammar Gaddafi. France's interpretation of UN Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over the country, was bolder than either the US's or the UK's position.

On January 11, 2013, France launched airstrikes against jihadist positions in northern Mali as part of Operation Serval. French involvement in Mali eventually morphed into a larger operation that involved ground troops and French special forces.

In 2008, France moved 300 troops into the Central African Republic's (CAR) capital of Bangui. The soldiers were involved in helping to helping to stabilize the country in the face of rebel attacks spilling over from the conflict-torn Darfur region of neighboring Sudan. In December 2013, France began reinforcing these soldiers in an attempt to stabilize CAR after a rebel coalition overthrew the country's government, sparking a brutal sectarian conflict between Muslim and Christian armed groups. France increased the number of soldiers in the country to 2,000.

French troops have played some role in Chad since the late 1986 as part of Operation Epervier. The operation was designed to help Chad maintain its territorial integrity according to a bilateral agreement signed after Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's failed invasion of the country.  However, French troops never fully left Chad. Instead, the French established a base at N'Djamena, Chad's capital. A contingent of approximately 800 French soldiers remained at the base and helped provide Chadian authorities with aerial surveillance on the advance of Sudanese government-supported rebels, acting as a crucial force multiplier for Chadian dictator Idris Deby during battles in the capital in 2006 and 2008. As part of a global mission to tackle militancy across Africa, France launched Operation Barkhane in 2014 as a continuation of Operation Epervier and Operation Servel. Operation Barkhane will be headquarted at N'Djamena and 1,200 troops will be stationed in Chad.

In 2002, a civil war split the Ivory Coast in half and the French intervened in Operation Unicorn. Peace was largely brokered in the Ivory Coast by 2007. But the country remained effectively divided and French soldiers continued to stay in the country. In 2011, violence again flared as Gbagbo refused to hand over power to his democratically elected successor, Alassane Ouattara. French troops played a key role in removing Gbabgo from power. Under France's reorganization of its military in Africa, the French plan to reinforce their base at Abidjan, Ivory Coast's capital. The base will be used as an entry point onto the continent as well as a logistical support post.

From 1999 to 2001, Djibouti fought an insurgency that was eventually put down with French assistance. Following the war, Djibouti became increasingly stable. France gave operations of Camp Lemonnier, a former Foreign Legion post, over to the government of Djibouti, which then leased it to the US in 2001.  France maintains over 1,500 troops in Djibouti as part of a security force. The French forces in Djibouti have taken part in operations in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Ivory Coast. A French battle group that includes the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle are currently operating in the area.

French Colonial Taxes Continue To Impoverish African Countries

Below are extracts from a lengthy article about the indebtedness of a number of African nations to their former colonial master, France. Colonialism persists in different guises till this day and this is just one of its manifestations. The one sure way to overcome any vestiges of colonialism and consequent indebtedness is to overthrow the world capitalist system for the common good, worldwide.
JS

  Did you know many African countries continue to pay colonial tax to France since their independence till today!

When Sékou Touré of Guinea decided in 1958 to get out of french colonial empire, and opted for the country independence, the french colonial elite in Paris got so furious, and in a historic act of fury the french administration in Guinea destroyed everything in the country which represented what they called the benefits from french colonization.
Three thousand French left the country, taking all their property and destroying anything that which could not be moved: schools, nurseries, public administration buildings were crumbled; cars, books, medicine, research institute instruments, tractors were crushed and sabotaged; horses, cows in the farms were killed, and food in warehouses were burned or poisoned.
The purpose of this outrageous act was to send a clear message to all other colonies that the consequences for rejecting France would be very high.
Slowly fear spread trough the african elite, and none after the Guinea events ever found the courage to follow the example of Sékou Touré, whose slogan was “We prefer freedom in poverty to opulence in slavery.”

In fact, during the last 50 years, a total of 67 coups happened in 26 countries in Africa, 16 of those countries are french ex-colonies, which means 61% of the coups happened in Francophone Africa.

 France is quite desperate but active to keep a strong hold on his colonies what ever the cost, no matter what.
In March 2008, former French President Jacques Chirac said:
“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power”

Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that:
 ”Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”

At this very moment I’m writing this article, 14 african countries are obliged by France, through a colonial pact, to put 85% of their foreign reserve into France central bank under French minister of Finance control. Until now, 2014, Togo and about 13 other african countries still have to pay colonial debt to France. African leaders who refuse are killed or victim of coup. Those who obey are supported and rewarded by France with lavish lifestyle while their people endure extreme poverty, and desperation.

It’s such an evil system even denounced by the European Union, but France is not ready to move from that colonial system which puts about 500 billions dollars from Africa to its treasury year in year out.

 For details of the 11 main components of the Colonisation continuation pact since 1950s - definitely worth reading - the full article can be seen here.


It’s up to us as African to free ourselves, without asking for permission, because I still can’t understand for example how 450 french soldiers in Côte d’Ivoire could control a population of 20 millions people!? 

People first reaction when they learn about the french colonial tax is often a question: “Until when?”
For historical comparison, France made Haiti to pay the modern equivalent of $21 billion from 1804 till 1947 (almost one century and half) for the losses caused to french slave traders by the abolition of slavery and the liberation of the Haitian slaves.
African countries are paying the colonial tax only for the last 50 years, so I think one century of payment might be left!

 By: Mawuna Remarque Koutonin, www.siliconafrica.com

The French Connection

The uncomfortable reality for the 154-million citizens of Francophone Africa is that five decades after independence, France still calls the economic shots. Eager to formalise its ties with its former colonies, France left behind something tangible when it vacated Africa during the wave of independence in the 1950s and 1960s: the CFA franc. Algeria, Guinea, Morocco and Tunisia exited the CFA zone shortly after independence.

In 1994 France devalued the CFA franc 50%, a hugely unpopular decision that led to a sharp increase in the cost of living and widespread unrest in Dakar, Senegal’s capital. The consequences of such a move was soaring inflation, a liquidity crisis and a dramatic rise in the cost of imports.

The CFA franc was created in 1945, ostensibly as a noble gesture to protect France’s African colonies from a devaluation of the French franc. Participating countries were required to deposit most of their foreign currency reserves with the French Treasury, which in turn dictated monetary policy and mandated when and how governments could access the money. The currency was pegged to the French franc, with France alone able to determine the exchange rate. The arrangement remains much the same 70 years later. Technically, two separate CFA francs are in circulation, each with its own central bank, in central and West Africa.

The CFA zone members must "pool together a minimum of 65% of their international reserves, corresponding to 20% of the monetary base of each central bank, into an operations account at the French Treasury". By depositing such a hefty chunk of their foreign reserves into a French-managed account, participating countries effectively lose control over their monetary policy. CFA members cannot use these funds as collateral to obtain credit because the reserves are held in the name of France. With French representatives on the boards of both CFA central banks, they are almost entirely dependent on French approval to set their own interest rates, or to control the amount of money within their economies — a basic policy tool for governments.

"The CFA franc arrangements keep the western African countries involved in the same economic shape as in colonial times. They provide raw materials to France and import all their manufactured goods. The convertibility of the CFA franc and its free transferability, combined with high interest and exchange rates, keep the franc zone countries in a state of structural deficits that render any development policies irrelevant," says Sanou Mbaye, a Senegalese development consultant and a former senior official at the African Development Bank.

Some argue that the CFA zone offers low inflation and a stable exchange rate, which in theory should encourage trade and foreign investment, says Canac.

"Unfortunately, those benefits seem to be more illusory than real. The CFA francs are overvalued and thus hinder exports while making imports cheaper (benefiting the African elite).... Although this does not necessarily prove that membership in the CFA is responsible for holding those countries back, it suggests at best that it does not help," explained Pierre Canac, an expert. "This dependence of the CFA countries ensures that France remains influential in this part of Africa. The African countries are more likely to support France, allow it to maintain a military presence, and confer some prestige to France. For France the political gains are worth the small economic costs."

Supporters of the CFA franc arrangement contend that it safeguards member countries against irresponsible governments that juggle interest rates or print money. With French backing and management, the CFA franc is unlikely to follow the Zimbabwean dollar whose value eroded after political turmoil and intense hyperinflation.

But France reaps untold economic benefits, says political analyst Gary Busch: the CFA arrangement is "the biggest Ponzi scheme you’ve ever seen". He claims the operations accounts have never been properly reckoned. In addition, these reserves have been invested in the Paris bourse with the French Treasury pocketing any profits.  Busch alleges that during the 2008-09 financial crisis, the funds in the operations accounts were pledged against the huge loans made to failing eurozone countries, such as Greece and Italy. The foreign reserves of some of the world’s poorest countries were risked to protect European states from bankruptcy.

http://www.bdlive.co.za/africa/africanperspectives/2015/03/19/frances-african-ponzi-economy

Why France Controls Mali

 As long as Mali is exploited by outsiders, as long as poverty and inequality will continue to exist, leading to insurrections, rebellions and military coups, instability will persist.

The French war in Mali receives little media coverage outside the limited scope of French-speaking media, which has successfully branded this war as one against Islamic militants.

In 1892, France colonized that once-thriving African kingdom, exploiting its resources and reordering its territories as a way to weaken its population and to break down its social structures.

The formal end of French colonialism of Mali in 1960 was merely the end of a chapter, but definitely not the story itself. France remained present in Mali, in the Sahel and throughout Africa, defending its interests, exploiting the ample resources and working jointly with corrupt elites to maintain its dominance.

On March 2012  Captain Amadou Sanogo overthrew the nominally democratic government of Amadou Toumani Touré. He used the flimsy excuse of protesting Bamako’s failure to rein in the militancy of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) in the north. Sanogo’s pretense was quite clever, though, as it fit neatly into a grand narrative designed by various Western governments, lead among them France and the United States, who saw Islamic militancy as the greatest danger facing many parts of Africa, especially in the Sahel.

Sanogo’s coup angered African governments, but was somehow accommodated by Western powers. In the following months, northern militants managed to seize much of the impoverished northern regions, continuing their march towards Bamako itself. On December 20, 2012, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2085, which authorized the deployment of the African-led International Support Mission to Mali. Armed with what was understood to be a UN mandate, France launched its war in Mali, under the title of ‘Operation Serval’.

On July 15, 2014, France declared that ‘Operation Serval’ was successfully accomplished. Yet, almost immediately, on August 1, 2014, it declared another military mission, this time an open-ended war, ‘Operation Barkhane’ and included Paris’ own ‘coalition of the willing’, dubbed ‘G5 Sahel’. All former French colonies, the new coalition consisted of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger.

 According to Deutsche Welle, “The security situation has worsened, not only (in the) the north but (in) central Mali as well”, the German news agency recently reported, conveying a sense of chaos, with farmers fleeing their land and with “self-defense militias” carrying out their own operations to satisfy “their own agendas”, and so on.

 Even with a heavy French military presence, instability continued to plague Mali. The latest coup in the country took place in August 2020. Worse still, the various Tuareg forces, which have long challenged the foreign exploitation of the country, are now unifying under a single banner. The future of Mali is hardly promising.

So what was the point of the intervention? Certainly not to ‘restore democracy’ or ‘stabilize’ the country.

In a recent article,  Karen Jayes elaborates. “France’s interests in the region are primarily economic. Their military actions protect their access to oil and uranium in the region.”

Mali’s wealth of natural resources is central to France’s economy. “An incredible 75 percent of France’s electric power is generated by nuclear plants that are mostly fueled by uranium extracted on Mali’s border region of Kidal,” in the northern parts of the country. Therefore, it is unsurprising that France was ready to go to war as soon as militants proclaimed the Kidal region to be part of their independent nation-state of Azawad in April 2012.

The Clandestine War on Africa: France’s Endgame in Mali - CounterPunch.org

La Francafrique

In previous blogs we have highlighted the roles of Chins and The united Staes in the politics and economics of Africa and in case we are criticised for not mentioning the other nations exploiting the continent , we have decided to highlight the French on this occasion

French businesses have longstanding operations in Africa. The continent accounts for 5 percent of France’s exports. Though France has diversified its sources of raw materials, Africa remains an important supplier of oil and metals. There are 240,000 French nationals living in Africa.

About 6000 French troops engaged in peacekeeping operations are deployed in Africa in both military and advisory capacities, according to the French Ministry of Defense. There are three main French bases in Africa. The largest is at Djibouti , with smaller forces at Dakar in Senegal and Libreville in Gabon. Their purpose is to promote regional security, though the base in Djibouti allows France to exercise a measure of military influence in the Middle East. (Also in Djibouti are about 1,500 American personnel stationed at the former French base Le Monier since 2003.)

Chad. France fields some 1,200 troops in Chad to protect French nationals, support the government of President Idriss Deby Itno, and provide logistical and intelligence support to Chadian forces. On a recent visit, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin promised France would “honor its agreements with a friendly and legitimate government.”

Central African Republic . France maintains some 300 troops in the CAR capital Bangui as part of Operation Boali, charged with restructuring the local armed forces and supporting FOMUC, an African force led by the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa, a regional body. François Grignon of the International Crisis Group say it’s likely “French special forces were engaged for limited but decisive operations.” The Economist reported that French fighters, attack helicopters, and special forces quashed a rebel advance on the capital Bangui in late 2006, allowing government forces to retake towns captured by rebels.

Ivory Coast. France deploys approximately 3,000 troops—under a UN mandate—to patrol the buffer zone between the rebel-controlled northern regions and the government-controlled south. Locals tend to view French troops as an occupation force; one French observer, as quoted in the Economist, calls Ivory Coast “France’s little Iraq.”
"First, we send soldiers to protect our nationals," declared diplomatic correspondent Christophe Ayad. "Then, we send more soldiers to protect the soldiers protecting our nationals. In the end, we send soldiers to decide a war."

Togo. French soldiers and transport aircraft are stationed in nearby Togo to support the operations in Ivory Coast.

France conducts joint maneuvers and peacekeeping training through the Reinforcement of African Peacekeeping Capacities (RECAMP) program and its Peacekeeping School (EMP) in Mali, which has trained over 800 African officers. These institutions intended to support the African Standing Force, a 20,000 strong rapid-response peacekeeping force projected to be ready by 2010.

France intervened militarily in Africa 19 times between 1962 and 1995. Most of the operations were ostensibly to protect French nationals or subdue uprisings against legitimate governments. Yet Professor Shaun Gregory of the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford in England points out that the standard for military support was contingent on an African leader’s willingness to support French interests.

French hands had blood on them during the Rwanda genocidal massacres . Despite having been a Belgian colony, by 1990 Rwanda was a fully-fledged member of "La Francafrique".
The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in 1990. The aim of this Tutsi dominated army was a return to their Rwandan homeland. The RPF were vilified by high-ranking French military figures as a "terrorist" bunch of foreigners from Uganda, and likened to the "Khmer noir".
Elite French paratroops were sent into Rwanda to keep the RPF at bay, in one of sixteen non-UN mandated military interventions by Paris in Africa between 1960 and 1994. Officially France sent more than $25 million worth of arms to Rwanda between 1990 and 1993, as well as providing army trainers to motivate and advise Habyarimana's army. Witnesses have recently testified that the French were also involved assisting with the newly formed youth militia, which were later to carry out the bulk of the genocide. In late June 1994 Mitterrand launched Operation Turquoise as a "humanitarian" intervention to protect Tutsis. While it undoubtedly saved around 10,000 lives, it also allowed fully armed genocidaire to escape over the border into Zaire, from where they were to relaunch attacks on the newly installed Kagame government. Such attacks, which independent NGO's said were partly financed and aided by French operatives .Mitterrand went further, to block desperately needed EU aid to the devastated country.

Colonialists to the barricades (1960)

From the March 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard By one of those transformations common in our society, a group who were the heroes of yesterday have become the traitors of today. The French settlers in Algeria and their sympathisers in the French Army, who played a leading role in De Gaulle's return to power in May, 1958, have become today's dupes of “liars and conspirators"; working against the “Glory and Honour .of France." Revolutionary or rebellious groups who push their efforts too far are always likely to find themselves at the wrong end of a “whiff of grapeshot." Messrs. Biaggi, Ortiz, and Lagaillarde and General Massu must now be bitterly regretting their assumption that they could challenge De Gaulle. A study of the careers of the Napoleons would have enlightened them on the methods and ethics of the struggle for power. Monsieur Lagaillarde, a French Parliamentary deputy for Algiers, will probably have ample opportunity for studying the situation at leisure, for he is likely to be imprisoned for his part in the rising. Positions have been curiously reversed in the past few weeks; many Moslems are supporting De Gaulle, and the French settlers are now against him. French rebels have shown less political astuteness than the Algerian Nationalists; the F.L.N., the Algerian Nationalist Army, have been careful not to take any action during the conflict between Algiers and Paris, although it would have been excellent militant strategy. The French colonists' hopes of dominating Algerian policy have taken a heavy blow, and it seems they must now take a back seat in French political and economic life. The Algerian war has for over five years been a serious drain on France’s resources. Algeria is a vast, mainly arid country with desert, mountain ranges and few areas of cultivation except in the coastal fringes. Many of its people are adept at living and even fighting on what most Europeans consider a starvation diet. Through the refusal of France to give the Algerians some measure of freedom and independence politically and economically, many among the population have become rootless, having neither soil to till nor trade to work at. They have little prospects other than to work for the colonists at low wages. They have little to lose in joining the F.L.N., and they have the opportunity of hitting back at their oppressors. With the Europeans forming only a tenth part of the population, military operations arc terribly difficult and costly—for France. For hit-and-run raids, for sniping, for sabotage, for acts of terrorism, the nature of the country is ideal. Guerrilla warfare, with a stream of recruits to be drawn from landless, embittered Algerians, is a venture promising great future profit for a Nationalist movement. The F.L.N. has adopted a cold-blooded policy of harassing the Colonists and the Army in every possible way. It is a ruthless war, with no Geneva conventions or consideration for prisoners of war on either side. This appears a hideous situation to us, but it is still a war on the classic Capitalist model with two opposing groups getting workers and peasants to fight for them. The F.L.N. has fought with the methods open to them, and the methods include the slaughter of French civilians (including women and children), and of any Moslems willing to co-operate with the French. The F.L.N. is a “ political” army—the voluntary, enthusiastic fighting expression of Algerian Nationalism. Their activities can be modified to suit the political needs of the moment, as during the colonists' rebellion. The F.L.N. has repaid brutality with brutality, but the process has become too expensive for France. Every strong-point must be guarded, every road watched, every village picketed. And the F.L.N. are probing, probing everywhere, looking for the flaw in discipline, the weak spot, the broken-down truck, the flicker of a match that betrays the careless soldier. The Colonists have shown attitudes and methods on the face of it repugnant to other nations. The frigid moral disapproval of other bourgeois groups can be taken with a pinch of salt, for any bourgeois group will display a disregard of its own political and ethical “principles" when its back is to the wall. Such mental and moral regression can be found among Kenya settlers, white South Africans, and among followers of the Nazi movement in Germany. The regression is complete, entering into the very nature of their thinking. This failure of whole groups (or “ herds" to use Trotter's more scathing word) to assimilate changed situations and ideas takes on the character almost of mental disorder, as compared with the “norms" prevailing in more secure sectors of Capitalist enterprise. As in white South Africa, the Colonists continue to use senseless, brutal methods in spite of the triumphs of African nationalism all around them. Underneath the moral and ethical armour of all Capitalist groups there lurks the terrible brutality of “Mine, mine, mine!" a brutality that turns normally sane, reasonable people into torturers and murderers; a brutality that when it comes into the open makes a mockery of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity "; and at the first threat of insecurity turns Liberty into Dictatorship, Equality into the Police State, and Fraternity into the terrible comradeship of the Army uniform. Oil There are several reasons for France to retain a hold in Algeria; and uppermost till now have been the interests of the Colonists. They dominate the fertile coastal strip, they hold much of the trade, and are the rulers in administration and local Government. There are other French interests in Algeria that are becoming more important than the Colonists' dates, wine and raisins. These other interests have always been a powerful, but somewhat hidden factor in French Government policy; with the opening of the oil pipeline, however, these interests are now in the open, and overriding. Oil-production is estimated this year at 1,500,000 tons, and by 1965 it is hoped will be 50,000,000 tons annually. There arc certain economic difficulties in marketing this oil, but the French Government and ruling class are hoping that there will be a sufficient increase in world demand to absorb Saharan production. The reserves have been estimated as being of Persian-Gulf standards. There are also enormous reserves of natural gas that could be of great use to French industry and also in developing industry in Algeria. But these outsize oysters are-likely to remain shut unless the war can be brought to an end. De Gaulle's return to power can only be understood against the background of colonial and economic trouble. De Gaulle was ostensibly returned because of rebellion in the Army and among the Colonists. "Committees of Public Safety,'' consisting frequently of right-wing organisations and individuals, sprang up everywhere in France and Algeria. But De Gaulle came to power not merely because of the Army's dissatisfaction with the corruption and ineptitude of successive French Governments, nor because of the scheming of reactionary politicians like Soustelle, but because French political parties were prepared to surrender an already tattered democracy in the interests of “National Unity.’' De Gaulle was the only political leader with sufficient prestige to command enough support to guarantee a period of stable Government. The issue was not “Algeria for the settlers,” but “National unity in order to place France once again among the front rank of European nations." The Colonists have become the dupes of the Soustelles, Biaggis, and Lagaillardes. These incipient demagogues hoped to achieve a right-wing solution in Algeria; the suppression of Algerian Nationalism and the complete and forcible integration of Algiers with France. In the process they no doubt hoped to find themselves in power, not merely in Algeria, but in France. The recent rising has shown the true position; De Gaulle wants a settlement of the Algerian war—even at the expense of the Colonists. He would like to see Algeria firmly united to France, but he can also see the political realities. He appreciates that the F.L.N. is something of a brickwall, a brickwall that it is ruining France merely to chip. A successful, even if temporary, settlement would mean the end of ruinous war, the possibility of peaceful exploitation of Saharan oil— with French capital and technical assistance, and a secure testing-site for France’s atomic bomb. The first indications of actual rebellion among the Colonists to reach outside observers were first the interview given by General Massu to a German correspondent; and secondly the meeting of the Mayors of the Algiers department. General Massu, whose tactlessness can only be interpreted as an attempt to sound the trumpet for a second, and much more drastic, May, 1958, expressed his dissatisfaction with De Gaulle's policy in Algeria—and said it in similar terms to those used by the Mayors. These gentry demanded the execution of Algerian Nationalists, and clearly stated the view, put into practice a few days later, that Algeria must remain French even if Paris decreed otherwise. M. Lagaillarde said, "Only one policy succeeds in Algeria, that of rebellion. We are ready to defend ourselves in arms.” (Quoted in The Guardian, 20/1/60.) General Massu was being in his reactionary way the starry-eyed dreamer. The conditions of May, 1958 no longer obtained. Even the Army, with a professional interest in the War, have shown themselves willing to obey De Gaulle. The Mayors were of course clinging tightly to their vineyards. Their premature rebellion has severely damaged their political prestige. Next time—if there is one—there will be much less confidence and enthusiasm. The cry of defiance may in the near future be replaced by the whine of the special pleader: open defiance for the more subtle and probably futile intrigue of the lobbyist. Still, the Colonists remain an important, but declining, factor not so much for themselves as for the use that may be made of them by demagogues like Soustelle. De Gaulle's Intentions Many interpretations have been made about De Gaulle's intentions, and his own statements contain contradictions, so that it is difficult to foresee precisely the course of events in Algeria. De Gaulle is trying to gain sufficient support among the Algerian leaders to make a settlement possible. He could offer, in return for co-operation, withdrawal of the Army to certain base areas and an increase of Algerian participation in economic and political life. He is seeking to achieve a settlement that will leave France with a limited, but important, hold in Algeria. A settlement would "pay” much better than the continuance of the war, which involves the possibility that the F.L.N. will be able to hold a position long enough to blow up the buried pipe-line. For the present, the war will drag on, with Dc Gaulle hoping that the deadlock with the F.L.N. can be broken. His policy can be summed up as “Profit for both sides." He has already achieved some “success”: the latest casualties among Moslems were reported to be among those demonstrating in favour of De Gaulle. The F.L.N. are hoping for a De Gaulle victory over the Colonists, and their lack of activity during the Colonists' rising points to a willingness to accommodate De Gaulle. The rank-and-file do not have very much to gain from either French Colonists or Algerian Nationalism. If an agreement was reached, however, and economic development went forward, they could hope for some improvement of their living standards. At least there might be the possibility of trade union action, which scarcely exists at the moment. The fate of any Algerians pushing their revolt too far would be the traditional “ whiff," this time administered by a legal Algerian Army backed up with French guns. The old cry of “Communist” will be heard and another section of the world's workers will discover the error of taking their leaders too seriously. The Algerians will find that they have but exchanged one set of oppressors for another. F. R. Ivimey

The blood-stained hand of Mitterand

Documents in today's Le Monde for the first time confirms long-held suspicions against France's president François Mitterrand supported the perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan genocide despite clear warnings that mass killings of the Tutsi population were being orchestrated , according to The Independent .

Previously secret diplomatic telegrams and government memos also suggest the late French president was obsessed with the danger of "Anglo-Saxon" influence gripping Rwanda. In three months from April 1994, at least a million Rwandans - mainly Tutsis - were systematically slaughtered in killings engineered by the Hutu regime to exterminate its ethnic rivals and repel the Uganda-trained Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The documents, obtained by lawyers for six Tutsi survivors who are bringing a case against France for "complicity with genocide'' at the Paris Army Tribunal, suggest the late President Mitterrand's support for the Hutus was informed by an obsession with maintaining a French foothold in the region. One of the lawyers, Antoine Compte, said France was aware of the potential danger of its support for the pre-genocide Rwandan government.
"Massacres on an ethnic basis were going on and we have evidence that France knew this from at least January 1993. The French military executed the orders of French politicians. The motivation was an obsession with the idea of an Anglo-Saxon plot to oust France from the region."

Among the evidence to suggest France was informed of the mounting genocide is a diplomatic telegram from October 1990 in which the French defence attaché in the Rwandan capital Kigali alerts Paris of the "growing number of arbitrary arrests of Tutsis or people close to them". The cable adds: "It is to be feared that [it could] degenerate into an ethnic war.''

Another diplomatic memo, quotes a Rwandan informant as saying that thepresident of the country, Juvenal Habyarimana, had suggested "proceeding with a systematic genocide using, if necessary, the army''.

Even though Rwanda was Belgian for most of the colonial era, France took a strong interest in the country after independence, seeing it as a bulwark against the powerful influences of English-speaking Uganda and Kenya. In the 1980s, French involvement in Rwanda was limited to two dozen military advisers. But when the Uganda-based RPF began launching attacks against President Habyarimana's regime in 1990, France sent arms and troops. Critics claim French troops stood by and watched as Rwandan Hutu soldiers massacred Tutsi civilians.

See Rwanda Genocide and also La Francafrique

France and Genocide

 France “bears significant responsibility” for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the Rwandan genocide of 1994 because it remained “unwavering in its support” of its allies even though officials knew the slaughter was being prepared. France has long been accused of not doing enough to halt the genocide although there is no evidence that French officials or personnel had directly participated in the killing of Tutsis.

The 600-page report, by the US law firm Levy Firestone Muse, labels France a “collaborator” of the extremist Hutu regime that orchestrated the murders of about 800,000 people, mainly from the Tutsi minority. France led Operation Turquoise, a military-humanitarian intervention launched under a UN mandate between June and August 1994. Its critics believe that it was in reality aimed at supporting the genocidal Hutu government.

The new report alleges that in the years before the genocide, “French officials armed, advised, trained, equipped, and protected the Rwandan government, heedless of the Habyarimana regime’s commitment to the dehumanisation and, ultimately, the destruction and death of Tutsi in Rwanda.”

French authorities also pursued “France’s own interests, in particular the reinforcement and expansion of France’s power and influence in Africa”, and in April and May 1994, at the height of the genocide, French officials “did nothing to stop” the massacres, says the report.

“The cover-up continues even to the present,” the report added, saying French authorities refused to cooperate with their inquiry or turn over critical documents pertinent to their investigation.

France ‘did nothing to stop’ Rwanda genocide, report claims | Rwanda | The Guardian

France falls out with Italy on Africa Policies

Conveniently forgetting his own country's ignoble history, Luigi di Maio, Italy's Deputy Prime Minister, called on the European Union to impose sanctions on France for its policies in African accusing it of exploiting Africa and fueling migration. 

"The EU should sanction France and all countries like France that impoverish Africa and make these people leave, because Africans should be in Africa, not at the bottom of the Mediterranean," he said. "If people are leaving today it's because European countries, France above all, have never stopped colonising dozens of African countries."

He said if it wasn't for Africa, France would rank 15th among world economies, not in the top six. He accused France of manipulating the economies of African countries that use the CFA franc, a colonial-era currency backed by the French treasury.

"France is one of those countries that by printing money for 14 African states prevents their economic development and contributes to the fact that the refugees leave and then die in the sea or arrive on our coasts," he said. "If Europe wants to be brave, it must have the courage to confront the issue of decolonisation in Africa."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46955006

Chad and Dictators

One of the functions of the media is to marginalise or silence Western aggression. The coverage of Hissène Habré, the former dictator of Chad, for crimes against humanity could well have presented the opportunity for the media to examine in detail the complicity of the US, UK, France and their major allies in North Africa in the appalling genocide Habré inflicted on Chad during his rule – from 1982 to 1990. After all, Habré had seized power via a CIA-backed coup.

 As William Blum commented in Rogue State:

“With US support, Habré went on to rule for eight years during which his secret police reportedly killed tens of thousands, tortured as many of 200,000 and disappeared an undetermined number.”

Largely missing from the corporate media was the massive, secret war waged over these eight years by the United States, France and Britain from bases in Chad against Libyan leader Colonel Mu’ammar Gaddafi.

By 1990, with the crisis in the Persian Gulf developing, the French government had tired of Habré’s genocidal policies while George Bush senior’s administration decided not to frustrate France in exchange for co-operation in its attack on Iraq. And so Habré was secretly toppled and in his place Idriss Déby was installed as the new President of Chad.

Reporting of the Habré sentencing has been predictably consistent across all the leading newspapers in the UK and US. Thus the focus has been on the jubilant reactions of a few of the victims of Habré’s torture and rape, on the comments from some of the human rights organisations involved for many years in the campaign to bring the Chad dictator to justice – and on the fact that it was the first time an African country had prosecuted the former head of another African country for massive human rights abuses. Only a tiny part of the reporting has mentioned the West’s role in the genocide. None of the reporting has placed the Chad events in the broader context of US/Western imperial aggression.

The story in the Guardian, by Ruth Maclean, was typical. Some 21 paragraphs were devoted to the report. But only in the last one (appearing almost as an after-thought) was there any mention of US complicity:

“The US State department and the CIA propped up Habré, sending him weapons and money in return for fighting their enemy, Muammar Gaddafi.”

In a follow-up editorial, the Guardian again left mentioning the West’s role until the last paragraph:

“Many questions still remain unanswered, including several concerning the responsibility or complicity of Western countries, such as France and the US, which actively supported Habré during the cold war years, turning a blind eye to his methods.”

The Telegraph adopted a similar approach. Aislinn Laing, based in Johannesburg, reported briefly:

“Mr Habré, 73, is a former rebel leader who took power by force in Chad in 1982 and was then supported by the US and France to remain at the helm as a bulwark to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.”

Adam Lusher, in the Independent, devoted just eight words to contextualising the trial:

“Hissène Habré was once backed by America’s Cold War-era CIA.”

In the New York Times, buried in paragraph 24 of a 27-paragraph report by Dionne Searcey are these words:

“Mr. Habré took power during a coup that was covertly aided by the United States, and he received weapons and assistance from France, Israel and the United States to keep Libya, to the north of Chad, and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, then the Libyan leader, at bay.”

Similarly, in Paul Schemm’s 23-paragraph report in the Washington Post, his paragraph 15 reads:

“Supported by the United States and France in his wars against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, Habré was accused of killing up to 40,000 people and torturing hundreds of thousands.”

Neither the Los Angeles Times nor the Belfast Telegraph could find any space to mention the West’s complicity.

The US today is still supporting human rights offenders across the globe – including the current dictator of Chad, Idriss Déby. Moreover, the Western powers, the US and France in particular, are using Chad as a major base for their covert military operations in Africa. A number of newspapers have commented on how the case set an important precedent for holding high-profile human rights abusers to account in Africa. Yet there has been little mention of the extraordinary background. For in June 2003, the US actually warned Belgium that it could lose its status as host to Nato’s headquarters if the Habré case went ahead on the basis of a 1993 law, which allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/06/how-the-press-hides-the-global-crimes-of-the-west/

France and the Rwanda Massacres

 France bears "heavy and overwhelming responsibilities" over the 1994 Rwanda genocide, a report by French historians says. The report said France had been "blind" to genocide preparations. The report blames the then French President, François Mitterrand, for a "failure" of policy towards Rwanda in 1994.

At least 800,000 people died when ethnic Hutu extremists massacred minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus. A Hutu elite ruled Rwanda when the genocide took place, in April-June 1994, but they were later ousted by the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) under Paul Kagame, who is now president.

"Is France an accomplice to the genocide of the Tutsi? If by this we mean a willingness to join a genocidal operation, nothing in the archives that were examined demonstrates this," the report's conclusions said. "Nevertheless, for a long time, France was involved with a regime that encouraged racist massacres...It remained blind to the preparation of a genocide by the most radical elements of this regime."

The report tells of French decision-makers trapped in "post-colonial" thinking who supported the "racist, corrupt and violent" regime of Habyarimana

Operation Turquoise, a military-humanitarian intervention launched by France under a UN mandate between June and August 1994. Its critics believe that it was in reality aimed at supporting the genocidal Hutu government.

And there have also been repeated accusations that authorities in Paris helped suspects in the Rwanda genocide to escape while under French military protection.

The report concluded that in July 1994 "murderers but also the masterminds of the genocide" were in a safe zone established by French forces in the west of the country "who the French political authorities refused to arrest."

'Blind' France bears responsibility on Rwanda genocide, historical commission reports (france24.com)

Chad's Puppet

 France “partners” former colonies Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and Chad in the G5 Sahel Joint Force, which props up Paris’s war in the Sahel. France launched its current military adventure in Mali – originally known as Operation Serval now re-named Operation Barkhane –  back in 2013 and it has expanded across the region. The results; civilian deaths (2,000 in 2019-20), internal displacement (well over one million), poverty (30 million people in need of food assistance), and coalition casualties (29 Malian, UN and French troops killed since the New Year). 

Chad’s commitment to deploy 1,200 more troops to complement Operation Barkhane’s 5,100 French soldiers. Chadian troops really amount to hired hands and cannon fodder for France, paid $58 a month. In April 2014, Chadian forces had to withdraw from the UN mission in the Central African Republic after accusations they’d killed 30 unarmed civilians and offered financial and military support to the country’s Seleka rebels. In Mali, there’ve been numerous allegations of rape and sexual violence perpetrated by Chad’s soldiers.

The political scientist Marielle Debos describes Chad’s cooperation “leads France and the US to turn a blind eye to election rigging and human rights violations.”

The current Chadian strongman Idriss Déby  has amended and re-amended the constitution so he can now stay in power until 2033. This week Chadian security forces raided the opposition presidential candidate’s house, killing five people (including his mother and son). Ahead of Chad’s scheduled April 11 election defying a government ban on protests under coronavirus restrictions several hundred demonstrators took to the capital N’Djamena’s streets and chanted “Leave, Déby!” They were met with police tear gas and several dozen were arrested. That’s all business as usual in Chad, a country where – according to the 2020 Freedom House report – “Corruption, bribery, and nepotism are endemic.”

It’s France – backed by America, and with EU-assist – that keeps Déby-the-despot in power. Déby is a decidedly useful — as were all the other despots who proceeded him (until they weren’t) — because he provides military bases, including Barkhane’s headquarters, and ample troops to do France’s bidding.

In February 2019, the French Air Force spent four days bombing rebel convoys that were en route to overthrow Déby. 

US AFRICOM’s commander, General Stephen Townsend, paid homage at Déby’s tinpot dictatorial court – where he “thanked Chad for its continued leadership in regional security and for hosting US troops.”

In August 2020, Washington delivered $8.5 million in vehicles and equipment to Chad’s Special Anti-Terrorism Group, as part of a $28 million total support package for N’Djamena’s troop contribution to the G5 Sahel Force. 

Starved and suppressed Chad’s humanitarian and human rights disasters are largely manmade. One wonders just how many bags of grain, mosquito nets, and vaccines could be provided instead of military supplies. According to a 2016 briefing for the World Peace Foundation, “Between 2006 and 2010, Chad became the third-largest importer of arms in sub-Saharan Africa, appearing for the first time in the top ten.” Furthermore, N’Djamena’s military spending increased eight-fold from just 2004 to 2008. 

Chad’s been exporting oil since 2003, and from 2004-11 alone earned around €4.5 billion – nothing to sneeze at for a country of just 15 million people. Not that average Chadians ever saw, or see, most of the petro-revenues.

Déby mortgaged the nation to the multinational Glencore company in 2014, when his government borrowed more than a billion dollars from the Anglo-Swiss mining conglomerate. The plan was to repay the loan with future oil sales, but after the petro-market collapsed more than 80 percent of oil revenues were needed to service the debt. 

How France and the US Cooperate – Consortiumnews

The Resource Curse Myth

Frank Timis, the owner of energy company Petro-Tim strategy is simple and it works. It consists of getting into business with corrupt African presidents and their families to win tenders that are ridiculously unfavourable to African countries. In recent years West Africa has become his favourite stomping ground. Timis has been reportedly linked to dirty mining deals in Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria and Burkina Faso.

The BBC released a documentary alleging financial impropriety by Aliou Sall, brother of President Macky Sall, in connection to a $10bn fraudulent energy deal with predatory entrepreneur Frank Timis. the president's brother, former country manager of Petro-Tim in Senegal, has received a $250,000 lump sum payment and a $25,000 monthly salary over a five-year period from Timis.

This, like other corruption stories in Africa, are often brushed off as the natural consequence of the "resource curse" and greedy elites. 

The popular theory of "the resource curse" - that natural resources might be more of an economic curse than a blessing - is commonly used in academic and policy discourse to explain away the paradox that resource-rich countries tend to have less economic, developmental and even democratic growth than countries with fewer natural resources. The theory, however, downplays global structural imbalances and ignores the adverse effects predatory capitalism has on resource-rich countries with export-oriented economies. It rests too problematically on assumptions about "African greed" and tropical fatalism. But corruption is not some virus that infects some predisposed to it and spares others with stronger immunity. Africans are no more corrupt than others.

There is no such thing as a "resource curse", only bankrupt policy choices. Resource-rich countries more often than not support economies that are heavily dependent on extraction - an economic model which encourages foreign patronage and rent-seeking behaviours that naturally lead to corruption.  

Extractivism remains the most enduring economic model in Africa. The continent procures the world with bodies and brains, copper and cobalt, oil and gas, diamonds and gold, wood, fish, artifacts and cultural heritage. The model not only drains resources, it also blocks Africa's capacity to create, produce and develop. It bleeds it dry at the expense of its populations already blighted by extreme poverty.

The foundations of this model were laid during colonialism, when imperial powers, through conquest and coercion, acquired sovereign prerogatives, from levying taxes and imposing customs duties to signing treaties and administering justice. The infrastructure for extraction was a mechanism perfected by chartered companies such as the British East Africa Company, a precursor to modern-day multinational corporations. The co-opting of a docile elite trained in colonial schools ensured continued loyalty to old colonial powers in lieu of real decolonisation.

In French-speaking Africa, France also developed such an extractive infrastructure. From Cote d’Ivoire to Niger, from Gabon to the Congo, France has deployed a geopolitical arsenal based on secret defence agreements and retrogressive interventionism. In fact, French colonialism faked its own death in "partnerships" that depoliticised postcolonial transactions. In reality, a (post)colonial pact continues to govern Franco-African transactions. This pact maintains African states' dependence on France by enforcing a system in which the former provides natural resources exclusively for the benefit of metropolitan France and imports, almost exclusively, manufactured products from the latter. This configuration is sustained by economic, military and political mechanisms that are not subject to any democratic control. One of the most prominent symbols of enduring imperialism in French-speaking Africa is the CFA Franc cooperation, which is an arrangement that requires its West and Central African members to deposit fifty percent of their foreign exchange surpluses into a French operations account in exchange for currency stability.

The maintenance of corrupt leaders was always a condition for continued business for colonial powers in Africa. To this day, France continues to do everything in its power, including deploying its military, to protect Africa's corrupt strongmen and the access they provide to the continent's resources. In the last few decades France took some unprecedented steps to protect its interests in Africa, including deploying Special Forces to protect a private French corporation's mining operations in Niger. Since 1960, the French military has intervened over 40 times in Africa. The most recent interventions such as Operations Serval and Barkhane in Mali and a rescue mission to save Chad’s president from a coup are testimonies that France is still acting like a colonial power in Africa.

In Senegal, French companies run virtually all infrastructural services, from the Dakar harbour (Bolloré) to the highways (Eiffage), from the train system (Eiffage, SNCF, RATP, Alstom) to oil exploration (Total). Macky Sall has turned Senegal into an investment heaven for French companies. In the process, he has become a staunch guardian of the French neocolonial order.

This colonial infrastructure and extraverted politics make it easy for predatory businessmen like Timis to exploit the resources of Senegal. He is easily able to do business navigating networks of corrupt officials who have already been conditioned to give concessions to foreigners in exchange for personal profit. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/colonial-roots-africa-corruption-problem-190806084604839.html