French presence in subsaharian Africa and how it should change

FAST HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION

Under De Gaulle's presidency, the French colonies in Africa became independant, peacefully for most of them (except Algeria as 10% of the population was french), and so France started to create links with those ex-colonies, sometimes by unethical means like supporting dictatorships, coups and etc. This network of relations was also supported by the USA during the whole Cold War as they didn't have the influence in Africa to do it by themselves. But in the XXI° century, the construction of these links doesn't match anymore with the reality of the African continent. Now I'll try to explain my opinions about this and we'll then be able to discuss about it.

FRANC CFA's CASE

Two different monies both named Franc CFA are in use in a very large part of the french ex-colonies, BUT there's a large problem about it : Central banks regulating them suffer of a veto right on their economic policy owned by the Banque de France, plus a very big part of their change reserves has to be stocked in France. So I think this french hegemony have to stop because it can (not always) block necessary policies and afterall as now french money is the Euro it doesn't offer an economical strenght in Africa to the country as it was during the Cold War. Atthe place, let's make two Eurozone-likes in Africa.

NEW MILITARY ALLIANCE

In my opinion, France should left NATO (Most of Europe + USA and Canada will not be really affected by the loss of one country) in order to create a NATO-like alliance with France and its ex-colonies in subsaharian Africa which wants to, and then maybe add Maghreb countries. For me, it's just necessary according to the situation of Africa in our days. Most of african countries armies lack of experience and quality, and the others mostly use Cold-War vehicles (a lot with french origin as they were light, cheap and well armed). The exemple of Mali is clear : used in collaboration with the Malian troops, the french army just made the islamists go backward and now the risk they take control over the whole country is quite low.

DEMOCRACY IN FRANÇAFRIQUE

As I already said it, support of dicatorships in Africa is one of the black points of the french history. But now we can change the Western behavior about it and fully support democratic transitions in those countries. That's why the UNO/French Army intervention in Centrafrica is decisive in my mind, because it will show us what works and what doesn't works in a situation like this.

Thalassin said:

FAST HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION

Under De Gaulle's presidency, the French colonies in Africa became independant, peacefully for most of them (except Algeria as 10% of the population was french), and so France started to create links with those ex-colonies, sometimes by unethical means like supporting dictatorships, coups and etc. This network of relations was also supported by the USA during the whole Cold War as they didn't have the influence in Africa to do it by themselves. But in the XXI° century, the construction of these links doesn't match anymore with the reality of the African continent. Now I'll try to explain my opinions about this and we'll then be able to discuss about it.

FRANC CFA's CASE

Two different monies both named Franc CFA are in use in a very large part of the french ex-colonies, BUT there's a large problem about it : Central banks regulating them suffer of a veto right on their economic policy owned by the Banque de France, plus a very big part of their change reserves has to be stocked in France. So I think this french hegemony have to stop because it can (not always) block necessary policies and afterall as now french money is the Euro it doesn't offer an economical strenght in Africa to the country as it was during the Cold War. Atthe place, let's make two Eurozone-likes in Africa.

NEW MILITARY ALLIANCE

In my opinion, France should left NATO (Most of Europe + USA and Canada will not be really affected by the loss of one country) in order to create a NATO-like alliance with France and its ex-colonies in subsaharian Africa which wants to, and then maybe add Maghreb countries. For me, it's just necessary according to the situation of Africa in our days. Most of african countries armies lack of experience and quality, and the others mostly use Cold-War vehicles (a lot with french origin as they were light, cheap and well armed). The exemple of Mali is clear : used in collaboration with the Malian troops, the french army just made the islamists go backward and now the risk they take control over the whole country is quite low.

DEMOCRACY IN FRANÇAFRIQUE

As I already said it, support of dicatorships in Africa is one of the black points of the french history. But now we can change the Western behavior about it and fully support democratic transitions in those countries. That's why the UNO/French Army intervention in Centrafrica is decisive in my mind, because it will show us what works and what doesn't works in a situation like this.

Click to expand...

So, what do you want to debate? The only point of contention seems to be whether France should leave NATO, although you give no reason for proposing it. If France wants a treaty alliance with its African ex-colonies, there's nothing to stop it and no reason why continued membership of NATO would prevent that happening.

I think you don't get how the french policy in Africa affected and still affect whole Africa. It's not just about France and the concerned African countries. This would create new organisations in Africa while a lot of powerful countries tries to create an influence sphere there (China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc...), and btw it would open the barriers to Africa's development.

In fact a notable part of the french opinion consider this behavior as neo-colonialism and so support the idea that Western countries should totally leave the continent and let Africa alone.

Thalassin said:

I think you don't get how the french policy in Africa affected and still affect whole Africa. It's not just about France and the concerned African countries. This would create new organisations in Africa while a lot of powerful countries tries to create an influence sphere there (China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc...), and btw it would open the barriers to Africa's development.

Click to expand...

I can see that English isn't your first language, so well done for that, but you're not making it clear: are you saying that France creating a treaty alliance with its ex-colonies is a good thing or a bad thing? Are you saying that that is the reason France should leave NATO?

In fact a notable part of the french opinion consider this behavior as neo-colonialism and so support the idea that Western countries should totally leave the continent and let Africa alone.

Click to expand...

I'm sure they do, but do you? We need to know your opinion before we can debate something.

Andalublue said:

I can see that English isn't your first language, so well done for that, but you're not making it clear: are you saying that France creating a treaty alliance with its ex-colonies is a good thing or a bad thing? Are you saying that that is the reason France should leave NATO?

Click to expand...

I'm saying it's a good thing, and a reason to leave NATO, but NATO + the potentially newly francoafrican alliance should work together. In fact I'm saying that France should leave NATO only because of a practical reason : nowadays the french army is too small to get involved in numerous african countries + in all NATO operations. Actually it already suffer of this phenomenon with the Vigipirate plan.

Andalublue said:

I'm sure they do, but do you? We need to know your opinion before we can debate something.

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of the french involvment in Africa, but I think the development of these countries should not be annihilated by foreign influence.

Thalassin said:

FAST HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION

Under De Gaulle's presidency, the French colonies in Africa became independant, peacefully for most of them (except Algeria as 10% of the population was french), and so France started to create links with those ex-colonies, sometimes by unethical means like supporting dictatorships, coups and etc. This network of relations was also supported by the USA during the whole Cold War as they didn't have the influence in Africa to do it by themselves. But in the XXI° century, the construction of these links doesn't match anymore with the reality of the African continent. Now I'll try to explain my opinions about this and we'll then be able to discuss about it.

FRANC CFA's CASE

Two different monies both named Franc CFA are in use in a very large part of the french ex-colonies, BUT there's a large problem about it : Central banks regulating them suffer of a veto right on their economic policy owned by the Banque de France, plus a very big part of their change reserves has to be stocked in France. So I think this french hegemony have to stop because it can (not always) block necessary policies and afterall as now french money is the Euro it doesn't offer an economical strenght in Africa to the country as it was during the Cold War. Atthe place, let's make two Eurozone-likes in Africa.

NEW MILITARY ALLIANCE

In my opinion, France should left NATO (Most of Europe + USA and Canada will not be really affected by the loss of one country) in order to create a NATO-like alliance with France and its ex-colonies in subsaharian Africa which wants to, and then maybe add Maghreb countries. For me, it's just necessary according to the situation of Africa in our days. Most of african countries armies lack of experience and quality, and the others mostly use Cold-War vehicles (a lot with french origin as they were light, cheap and well armed). The exemple of Mali is clear : used in collaboration with the Malian troops, the french army just made the islamists go backward and now the risk they take control over the whole country is quite low.

DEMOCRACY IN FRANÇAFRIQUE

As I already said it, support of dicatorships in Africa is one of the black points of the french history. But now we can change the Western behavior about it and fully support democratic transitions in those countries. That's why the UNO/French Army intervention in Centrafrica is decisive in my mind, because it will show us what works and what doesn't works in a situation like this.

Click to expand...

I would be most interested in the reactions of EU countries, if France asked them to help out with boots in any meaningful number on African soil. I mean, we are not talking 3.000 or 4.000 required but maybe 50.000 or 100.000 at times of great stress. And it would require staying power as well as yearly financial flows of substantial size. I do not thing the EU can handle that. Especially not "for France and Africa".

Thalassin said:

I'm saying it's a good thing, and a reason to leave NATO, but NATO + the potentially newly francoafrican alliance should work together. In fact I'm saying that France should leave NATO only because of a practical reason : nowadays the french army is too small to get involved in numerous african countries + in all NATO operations. Actually it already suffer of this phenomenon with the Vigipirate plan.



I'm in favor of the french involvment in Africa, but I think the development of these countries should not be annihilated by foreign influence.

Click to expand...

For Europe to leave Nato would be hair-raisingly stupid. For a member state it might make sense in order to free ride Nato security a little longer, but even that is becoming more questionable as an optimizing strategy, with the Nato partners alert and angry at past free riders.

joG said:

I would be most interested in the reactions of EU countries, if France asked them to help out with boots in any meaningful number on African soil. I mean, we are not talking 3.000 or 4.000 required but maybe 50.000 or 100.000 at times of great stress. And it would require staying power as well as yearly financial flows of substantial size. I do not thing the EU can handle that. Especially not "for France and Africa".

Click to expand...

You know, with african armies + France it's perfectly possible to reach 50 000 soldiers mobilized in the alliance's bases (as countries like Chad have numerous troops).

joG said:

For Europe to leave Nato would be hair-raisingly stupid. For a member state it might make sense in order to free ride Nato security a little longer, but even that is becoming more questionable as an optimizing strategy, with the Nato partners alert and angry at past free riders.

Click to expand...

I think NATO could stay strong and united as long as USA, UK and Germany stay in. In fact during Cold War France hadn't been a decisive NATO member because of De Gaulle's policy and its legacy.

Thalassin said:

You know, with african armies + France it's perfectly possible to reach 50 000 soldiers mobilized in the alliance's bases (as countries like Chad have numerous troops).



I think NATO could stay strong and united as long as USA, UK and Germany stay in. In fact during Cold War France hadn't been a decisive NATO member because of De Gaulle's policy and its legacy.

Click to expand...

Oh. I fully know that African armies are quite easily increased to large size as they are cheap and within their context they have been successful at times. But I was thinking of First World soldiers.

Germany is a lose cannon as is France. Both will go off on tangents and cause huge damage for a single election.

Having said this, I believe that Nato is the only way to go for the near future, but is already loosing its credibility with Obama's actions of the past years. This should not have happened so early, but is inevitable over time. If we do not replace it with a global security system, we should expect a nuclear or major war using WMD withing the next 40 or so years.

In fact I don't think that German troops would be better than african ones in Africa, because except, USA, France and maybe UK, I don't think any other western country has the experience and the capacity to fight against guerillas on African soil (and even in the Middle East but there are different circumstances), whereas African countries already got successes against rebels or invasions (Chad, Cameroon and some others)

Thalassin said:

So I think this french hegemony have to stop because it can (not always) block necessary policies and afterall as now french money is the Euro it doesn't offer an economical strenght in Africa to the country as it was during the Cold War. Atthe place, let's make two Eurozone-likes in Africa.

Click to expand...

You got it all wrong. You considered the complex and deep monetary questions, yet answered with a completely ungrounded fantasy entirely driven by your despise for your own country (remarkably common in France unfortunately). I suspect you didn't invent all of those fantasies by yourself though, so I suggest you seriously put in perspective the propaganda you are exposed to, whatever the pseudo-prestigious name associated with it.

Back to reality: the Franc CFA is not imposed by France. It has the same costs and benefits for us as trade partners of Africa than it does for African countries: monetary stability (good for their economy/for our trade with them), unfit policies (bad for African economy/for our trade with them, worsened by the EMU's rigid policies), stability in respect the eurozone (eases trade in both directions - and a poor country needs rich countries' industrial goods and therefore it needs to export to pay for them). It is akin to the situation in China where the RMB is pegged to the dollar, just like the CFA is pegged to the euro. A situation deliberately chosen by China. Many poor or intermediate countries purposely choose this strategy to peg their currencies to another big one, preferably their biggest trade partner.

Of course, if those countries could have monetary stability and a more autonomous economy, it would be best for them to have their own currency or, probably even better, many currencies (a currency must be tailored to a country's needs and you need homogeneity and solidarity, both things absent from the CFA zone and the eurozone). But monetary stability is hard to achieve for a poor/intermediate economy. And this is even harder on a continent notorious for its poor governance. I doubt investors, exchange markets and trade partners would trust this new currency.

In my opinion, France should left NATO (Most of Europe + USA and Canada will not be really affected by the loss of one country) in order to create a NATO-like alliance with France and its ex-colonies in subsaharian Africa which wants to, and then maybe add Maghreb countries. For me, it's just necessary according to the situation of Africa in our days.

Click to expand...

Why?

What would be the interest of France to leave NATO? What would be our interest to join a military alliance with African countries? How would this articulate with the rivalry between super-blocks (west/China)? The risk of a conflict between Islam and the rest of the world, the West especially? Will it guarantee us access to oil and other resources in case of war? Will it protect us from an Iranian missile strike? From a Russian invasion? Will it allow us to secure our satellites, spatial access, sea routes?

Maybe you think French policies should not take into account French interests? Maybe you are ready to bet our future on your optimism that we will never face any security threat (true threats, not terrorism) and that resources will always be freely purchasable on free markets?

Thalassin said:

As I already said it, support of dicatorships in Africa is one of the black points of the french history.

Click to expand...

This is ridiculous, those countries are not dictatorships because of our support. They are democracies because 99.99% of all humans who ever lived in civilization have lived under dictatorship.

Democracy is HARD. Between 1789 and the third republic, we underwent three empires, two monarchies, one tyranny, and a pile of wars. The very idea that you should respect the law rather than the leader was alien to the world, and still is for most cultures. At least we already had a quasi-national identity before that, and it was then strengthened by a strong revolutionary mythology. And you expect illiterate countries that, for the most part, have no national identities because they are rather cohorts of conflicting tribes whose history never produced more than ephemeral kingdoms, sometimes even less, who sometimes does not even ave proper communication axes between the areas of the country, to spontaneously turn into democracies? Life does not work like that. And before you blame us for the borders, we actually usually did stick to existing borders, or the closest thing there was (agreements between ethnic groups, existing or former kingdoms, natural borders, etc).

Anyway in many countries people prefer to keep their dictators rather than risk civil war. Many dictators enjoy popular support, and not just because of propaganda, also because people remember what it was before and they are unsure of what they would have otherwise. War is a frequent occurrence in Africa and many people have a direct experience of it and prefer stability. First humans want food, then they want security. Then they want prosperity. Then they want freedom. Then, finally, once they have all the rest (or once they blame the govt for not having it), they want democracy. They focus on stability and economic development, knowing the rest will follow.


And if you think we could impose democracy, you are deluded. A dictator clings to power by definition, and China will be more than happy to invest instead of us if we start overthrowing governments.

I think you don't get how the french policy in Africa affected and still affect whole Africa.

Click to expand...

Regarding your overall severe misunderstanding of Africa and French policies, inspired by a banal self-hatred for your country and the usual despicable and stupid propaganda we see in France... Colonialism was a barbarian decision of course. And in the years after independence we kept this attitude, attempted to tightly control regimes sometimes at a great cost, and focused on resources rather than understanding how a prosperous African market could benefit us. But those days are long behind us and nowadays there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about our policies towards African countries, all the opposite. Of course we will seek our interests, this is our government's duty, but there is nothing wrong with that and it is often mutually beneficial.

Stop thinking we are responsible for everything wrong in the world and the worse country that ever existed. Slavery existed before us, those countries were poor before us, they would be dictatorships without us. And their own history is equally tainted by blood and slaughters, often enough with less humanism, cultural achievements and scientific uplift. We have simply been more powerful.

In fact a notable part of the french opinion consider this behavior as neo-colonialism and so support the idea that Western countries should totally leave the continent and let Africa alone.

Click to expand...

The major part of the French opinion has been rendered stupid by propaganda. Talking about neo-colonialism about our current policies is an intellectual imposture.

The West should stay out of this hell hole where tribalism rules, and let them slaughter each other as they have been doing since we left them to their own devises, after bringing them out of the cave to civilization, which they cannot seem to adapt to, we have the same problem with our Aboriginals in Australia, no matter what monies we give them, no matter what we do for them, a certain group will not adapt into the twenty first century, thank God they don't have guns as they do in Africa.