By James H. McGee
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
After “difficult” negotiations, the U.S. and the
government of Niger have agreed to a complete withdrawal, by mid September, of
U.S. military personnel from bases in Niger. Since the military coup last July,
which ousted President Mohamed Bazoum, relations between the U.S. and Niger’s
military junta have steadily worsened. To that extent, at least, the recent
announcement provided reassurance that our personnel would not simply be
summarily ejected.
Some would have it that our departure from Niger is of
little moment. A case for this proposition was made in late March here at National
Review by Daniel DePetris. DePetris correctly noted that the
purpose of our military presence in Niger was to “monitor” terrorist activity
across the Sahel region of West Africa and concedes that this is a growing
problem in West Africa. He observes that “one can reasonably expect to see more
terrorist activity in Niger with less U.S. eyes in the sky,” noting, again
correctly, that the Islamic State and al-Qaeda now view the region as their
“main base of operations.” Finally, there is the acknowledgement that Russia
and China, already well-represented across Africa, will likely take advantage
of the opening provided by the U.S. departure.
He then dismisses each of the foregoing concerns. Chinese
investment, while substantial, has disappointed African governments. Closer
ties with Russia might endanger relations with the West, and all Russia really
has to offer are the services of “mercenary thugs” who protect “highly
unpopular heads of state.” Finally, he reassures us that the Biden
administration has already thought “this entire situation through,” having
opened talks with the coastal states of Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Benin regarding
hosting alternative locations for U.S. drone operations.
The very notion that the Biden administration has
“thought” any foreign policy situation “through” should give us pause. So, too,
with each of the foregoing arguments, which either ignore or minimize other
critical considerations. DePetris dismisses the rising terrorist activity
across the Sahel as largely aimed at the governments of the region and,
therefore, inconsequential for the U.S. But these local governments are
demonstrably incapable of dealing with this terrorist activity without our
assistance. We’ve been down this path before. After all, we went into
Afghanistan after 9/11 precisely because it was intolerable to leave terrorist movements to
grow unmolested, to enjoy a “safe haven,” to move beyond simply being “local”
threats.
Both the Islamic State and al-Qaeda remain irredeemably
hostile to the “great Satan” and, left to build out their African sanctuaries,
may once again become a threat to the U.S. Iran has also become a more
significant player across Africa. Moreover, the mullahs have demonstrated
repeatedly that, when it comes to discomfiting the U.S., they’re remarkably
ecumenical when it comes to the Sunni versus Shiite divide and may well have an
interest in working with these groups.
DePetris suggests that China has overplayed its economic
hand in Africa, but the Chinese presence remains significant, particularly
wherever critical natural resources are in play. But to focus simply on the
economic dimension is to ignore the larger pattern of Chinese influence
operations. The Chinese threat cannot be reduced to concerns about the Taiwan
Strait. There is an important Chinese military base on the Horn of Africa in
Djibouti. China is now well along in developing a similar military presence on
the South Atlantic coast, in Equatorial Guinea. The Chinese have repeatedly
demonstrated their willingness to fill the voids we leave behind. China has significantly increased its influence in
Africa over the last 20 years while, in the words of Thomas Sheehy, an
African expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace, U.S. influence has “flatlined.”
Putin, of course, had a golden opportunity to rein in the
presence of Russian mercenary thugs in Africa in the aftermath of the Prigozhin
“can we call it a coup?” attempt. Instead, he doubled down, taking tighter
control of these African assets but pushing their availability more widely than
ever. One may wish, idealistically, that aligning Russia with African
dictatorships may eventually prove costly and that time is on the side of
democratic forces across the continent. But that requires playing a very long
game, one measured in decades, and maybe not even then.
As for relocating our drone operations, one should simply
look at the map. Our current base at Agadez is located in the center of Niger,
which means that it is also located in the strategic center of the whole of
western Africa. Drone coverage is not simply a function of range but also
loiter time, which is maximized from a central location. Moving to a coastal
region represents a poor tradeoff. Not incidentally, a presence in the
Agadez region also offered an
opportunity to influence, positively, the growing tide of illegal
immigration flowing toward Europe and, increasingly, the southern
border of the United States.
What, then, do we stand to lose? Unlike the French,
tainted with colonial misdeeds and Macron’s ham-handed African diplomacy, we
enjoyed a reasonable basis for good relations with the military in Niger. As
some have noted, sniffily, several of the key leaders of the new junta had
trained in the U.S. Perhaps, between now and September, we still find a modus
vivendi. Niger’s leaders have left that door at least slightly ajar.
Against the myriad threats we currently face around the
globe, maintaining a small base in Niger seems hardly significant. But the
resources involved were small and the benefits many. Maintaining a visible
presence and demonstrating staying power — these are important parts of
ensuring our ability to shape events in our favor. One may dismiss the concept
of “presence” as an outmoded relic, gunboat diplomacy redolent of Steve McQueen
in The Sand Pebbles. But the old gunboats — or an ultramodern drone base
— provided benefits all out of proportion to their size. We might ponder that
going forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment