Difficult to trust the resource nationalism of Niger’s military government. Opinion

Last month, France’s majority state-owned nuclear group Orano revealed that Niger’s military government had taken “operational control” of its Nigerian uranium mining subsidiary Somair. In a statement dated 4 December, it claimed that decisions taken at board meetings at Somair – in which Niger State has a 36.6 percent stake – were “no longer being implemented”. Critically, it said Nigerian authorities were refusing to suspend production at the mine, as well as not allowing the export of produce, allegedly “placing a heavy burden on workers and local communities”. .

Ourano says it first faced difficulties in running Somayor in July 2023, shortly after a group of high-ranking army officers led by General Abdourahmane Tchiani ousted Nigerian President Mohammed Bazoum.

In response to the coup, the regional bloc ECOWAS suspended Niger’s membership and imposed sanctions on the country. These included trade sanctions, which halted all exports through Benin, including Somair’s uranium exports.

ECOWAS lifted these trade restrictions in February 2024, but Nigerian authorities decided to keep their border with Benin closed. They have also refused to restart Somair’s uranium exports via an alternative route, effectively ending the Orano subsidiary’s prospects for commercial survival.

The military government in June dealt a further blow to Orano’s interests in Niger by revoking the permit granted to its second subsidiary, Imouraren SA, to mine the Imouraren uranium deposits – believed to be one of the largest in the world. Is – on the grounds that the French company’s development plans did not meet expectations.

The Nigerian junta’s apparent hostility towards the French nuclear giant is not without reason.

Since first taking power, Niger’s military rulers have been expressing their dissatisfaction with the process by which foreign companies are able to secure lucrative mining licenses, saying they are depriving the landlocked African country’s 27 million citizens of their rich resources. More profits should be obtained from uranium reserves.

There is merit in his argument.

Despite all its natural resources, Niger remains one of the poorest countries in the world, with almost half of its population living in extreme poverty and about 13.1 percent facing severe food insecurity. Despite helping keep the lights on in Europe from uranium found on their lands, only one in seven Nigerians has access to modern electricity services. The West African country is ranked 189th out of 193 countries in the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index for 2023-24.

Clearly, over the years the average Nigerian has gained almost nothing from the country’s abundant and enviable natural resources. This deep injustice can be largely attributed to the actions of France, Niger’s former colonial authority.

Niger declared its independence from France in 1960, but never actually managed to stop French exploitation of its uranium reserves. Taking advantage of pre-independence era trade agreements, France has been extracting uranium in Niger with the highest possible profit margins for more than five decades, leaving Nigerians with nothing but crumbs. And sometimes, according to Nigerian officials, French companies do not even pay the officially agreed amount for exports.

For example, Mahaman Louan Gaya, Nigeria’s former energy minister and secretary-general of the African Petroleum Producers Organization (APPO) until 2020, told the German publication DW in a 2023 interview that Niger exported uranium worth 3.5 billion euros ($3.6 billion). . France received only 459 million euros ($480m) in return in 2010.

Now, it seems, at least superficially, that the military government is making a reasonable effort to end this unequal and exploitative trade relationship built on French colonial privilege. However, when you dig a little deeper, it becomes clear that the military government’s actions are not based solely on a desire to advance the Nigerian national interest. The unelected administration’s primary objective in targeting Ourano appears to have been not to save the nation from colonial exploitation, but to pressure France to recognize its rule.

Niger’s Mines Minister, Colonel Abarchi Ousmane, acknowledged this in a recent interview with RIA Novosti news agency.

“The French state has announced through its head of state that it does not recognize the existing authorities in Niger,” he told the Russian outlet in November. “Do you find it possible that we, the State of Niger, will allow French companies to continue mining our natural resources?”

It is clear from this statement that the military government might be willing to allow Orano to extract Niger’s resources, but only if the French government gives them legitimacy in the international arena (and perhaps a slightly better share of the profits).

Alas, it appears that the military government is doing the right thing, at least for a while, but for the wrong reasons.

Nigerians have the inherent right to control their national resources. Nevertheless, this fundamental right should not be abused to ensure the political well-being and long-term survival of an increasingly repressive coup regime, which is closely linked to Russia – another self-serving imperial power, no doubt. is eagerly waiting for its turn to exploit Niger’s uranium. Reserves and other resources.

The resource nationalism that the military government is promoting can greatly help Niger and bring justifiable prosperity and stability to its people. But only if the country’s rulers avoid replacing the exploitation perpetrated by former colonial masters with their own domestic corruption and violent repression.

Indeed, the appropriation of indigenization efforts and rhetoric by seemingly nationalist and anti-colonial leadership to further their selfish agenda is not without precedent in Africa. And every time a government or leader has turned nativism in general – and resource nationalism in particular – into a tool to consolidate power to oppress people, the end result has been economic, political and social destruction. .

Take Niger’s oil-rich neighbor Libya – perhaps the country that achieved the most success through indigenization on the continent.

Two years after seizing power in a bloodless coup in September 1969, then-Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi sought to renegotiate the price of oil in favor of a socioeconomic revolution.

After extensive negotiations, Libya signed an unprecedented agreement with Western oil companies in March 1971. The deal increased the fixed price of Libyan oil from $2.55 per barrel to $3.45, increasing annual revenues for Libya by more than $600m (equivalent to approximately $4.6bn). Today).

Two years later, in September 1973, Libya nationalized 51 percent of the assets of all oil companies operating in the country. As a result of the unexpected windfall, per capita income in the North African country increased from $1,830 in 1970 to more than $4,000 in 1975 and became one of the highest in the world by 1979.

With substantial financial resources derived from resource nationalism and indigenization, Gaddafi successfully ushered in a new era of quasi-socialist socio-economic advancement that facilitated the construction of new housing, educational institutions, and health care facilities. For a time, the revolution made extraordinary profits. Libyans experienced rapid improvements in living standards, literacy rates, and life expectancy.

Yet the good days did not last – partly because Gaddafi began to position himself and his regime as the new oppressor of a nation freed from Western exploitation.

As well as introducing flashy new developments, Gaddafi unleashed a wave of persecution – censorship, forced disappearances, mass arrests, show trials, televised public executions and massacres – that ravaged university students, intellectuals, devout Muslims, Targeted opposition groups and political rivals. ,

Gaddafi’s willingness to suppress any critical voice and crush fundamental civil liberties and human rights in order to seize absolute power quickly transformed him from a nationalist hero into a feared villain. Widespread state violence led to anti-government protests and internal strife, as well as pressure from Western powers concerned about losing cheap access to the country’s resources, leading to the end of his rule in 2011 and Libya’s second civil war.

For a moment, Gaddafi – and Libya – was winning. The country had regained control of its wealth. The future was bright. But he blew it.

Another notable example of attempted African nationalization, which ended in chaos and suffering due to the appetite for absolute power and personal enrichment of the so-called “nationalist” and “anti-colonial” leadership, occurred in Zimbabwe.

In 2000, under the leadership of former President Robert Mugabe, the ruling ZANU–PF party launched an accelerated land reclamation program aimed at addressing the injustices of land appropriation that occurred during British colonial rule. About 170,000 black Zimbabwean families were resettled, each receiving 6 hectares (15 acres) of prime agricultural land previously owned by about 4,000 white commercial farmers.

However, ZANU-PF carried out an extremely chaotic, violent and highly politicized land reform process. Supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party – both real and merely suspected – were targeted. Mugabe used all the resources of the state not to give back to the people of Zimbabwe what was stolen from them by the colonialists – as he had promised – but to quell discontent with his rule. Ultimately, the violent methods adopted to implement the land reforms and force Zimbabweans to continue voting for them destroyed national unity, provoked sanctions from Western countries and resulted in a devastating economic recession.

Today, seven years after the end of his rule, Zimbabwe has still not recovered from Mugabe’s critically needed and highly justified, but poorly and unjustly executed land redistribution effort.

Since 1960, the landmark year when 17 African countries achieved independence, indigenization and resource nationalism have always been in vogue in Africa. Today, from Senegal to Ghana, many African leaders still say they are working to help Africans reclaim their rights and increase local ownership of oil, gas and mining enterprises in their countries .

Resource nationalism can indeed provide African countries with the boost they need, and ultimately help them achieve true independence and long-term prosperity. However, as events in Libya and Zimbabwe have proven, efforts to nationalize resources under the guidance of self-interested leaders more concerned about their political future than the well-being of the nation can prove disastrous.

Niger is now at a critical juncture. If its military government chooses to pursue true resource nationalism, keeps its many promises to the nation, and establishes a new system that will allow every penny earned from the extraction and export of uranium to be returned to the people, So the country can really prosper. If indigenization goes hand in hand with democratization and people power, Niger could finally shrug off the last vestiges of colonial control, and become – as Libya briefly was – an engine for progress in Africa.

Sadly, the military government seems to be adopting the latter path, which may help it politically in the short term but will undoubtedly harm the country in the long run.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.