No, as it stands it is irrelevant. Only the presidency changed but there is no civil war. Let's not start spreading unrelated excuses to justify a military intervention that would do more harm than good.
As it stands, the Nigerien military has also explained that there had been roadblocks in the fight against jihadism because they were not allowed to coordinate with the new governements of Mali and Burkina which have veered against French interests. That was one of the main reasons given for the coup.
It has nothing to do with too many people being born.
Which countries with such policies are you speaking of by the way? (I'm curious, I honestly don't know)
Besides, Nigeriens are currently 25 million which is less than half of the French population in a country that is twice the size.
Poverty didn't start yesterday, nor did the exploitation of natural resources. How is that country so poor and others such as Qatar aren't?
It's impossible not to notice that former French colonies are often poorer than their British, Italian (Libya before the French, once again, pushed for a military intervention and embarked the US in that campaign) or Portuguese counterparts.
The only way fertility is problematic is that the population is young and the infrastructures that should have been built AND maintained... haven't. Along with education and the health sector.
All the more reasons to understand why they can seem to resent the French government (and not France in general as is depicted in some media).
Frankly, if solutions haven't been found after all these years, they simply haven't been sought. Going from first principles, if one wants to solve migrations and whatnot, just let them develop themselves properly.
Poverty didn't start yesterday, nor did the exploitation of natural resources. How is that country so poor and others such as Qatar aren't?
Well because Uranium just isn't gas or petrol, there's no way around it. There's a very limited amount of buyers and most of the actual value is in the power plant.
Nobody ever got rich from a Uranium mine.
What will probably happen is they will sell it cheaper to China instead and get less money.
Well, there are other exports.
There might even be oil. The neighbor Chad has some and isn't any better.
Checked, oil has been discovered in Niger in the 70's...so yeah... And they are still poor?!
And even then, they should have exchanged a package: Exploitation rights against revenue with costs of infra + maintenance deducted.
There needs to be roads or trains assuredly and whatnot for those exports to transit.
Who cares if they get a better bargain from the US, the Chinese or whoever else. That's competition. That's supply and demand. That's how they should get the most of what they have. No need to be so sour about it.
Graft from the elites is the reason, not supposed unequal contracts from western companies.
Also, wealth of nations comes from production, not just mere exploitation of ressources.
Countries like Germany got very rich early by producing valuable things instead of selling their ressources. On the contrary, Portugal had dozens of gold mines, and now it's much poorer than european industrial powerhouses.
This happens in any African country, whatever the colonizer. For instance, Nigeria is hardly dominated by foreign powers, yet it is a prime case of crony capitalism.
Checked, oil has been discovered in Niger in the 70's...so yeah... And they are still poor?!
Maybe because Niger produces 20k barels per day and Saudi Arabia 12 millions per day? What are we even comparing here?
With such a low production of petrol (of a similar level as metropolitan France actually) I don't think it's even worth selling it at all, it has more value as a strategic reserve for the military.
Who cares if they get a better bargain from the US, the Chinese or whoever else. That's competition. That's supply and demand. That's how they should get the most of what they have. No need to be so sour about it.
Yes for sure, that's okay to sell it cheaper with the market rate to China if it's what they really want.
Which countries with such policies are you speaking of by the way? (I'm curious, I honestly don't know)
I'm from Tunisia, North Africa. We have successfully inverted the birth pyramid in ~50 years with the help of funding from UN.
And by the way, I'm not sure what other thing we're disagreeing about, to be clear, I don't think wars in Niger (and all ancient colonies in Africa) are endogenous.
How is that country so poor and others such as Qatar aren't?
Corruption, corruption, corruption, and incompetence. Qatar doesn't have illiterate and corrupt clowns running the show. Seriously, I'm African, and I don't understand why people find it difficult to say the truth to us.
We are our own problem because we keep giving birth to more people than we can handle and voting in buffoons to run the economy.
Can't change the head when they are protected and protect some French interests. Some people definitely find kakistocratic regimes advantageous. How can one do business then?
Some foreign investors even have to leave some countries because it's impossible to do proper business. That's a shame.
Comments
No, as it stands it is irrelevant. Only the presidency changed but there is no civil war. Let's not start spreading unrelated excuses to justify a military intervention that would do more harm than good.
As it stands, the Nigerien military has also explained that there had been roadblocks in the fight against jihadism because they were not allowed to coordinate with the new governements of Mali and Burkina which have veered against French interests. That was one of the main reasons given for the coup.
It has nothing to do with too many people being born.
Which countries with such policies are you speaking of by the way? (I'm curious, I honestly don't know)
Besides, Nigeriens are currently 25 million which is less than half of the French population in a country that is twice the size.
Poverty didn't start yesterday, nor did the exploitation of natural resources. How is that country so poor and others such as Qatar aren't?
It's impossible not to notice that former French colonies are often poorer than their British, Italian (Libya before the French, once again, pushed for a military intervention and embarked the US in that campaign) or Portuguese counterparts.
The only way fertility is problematic is that the population is young and the infrastructures that should have been built AND maintained... haven't. Along with education and the health sector.
All the more reasons to understand why they can seem to resent the French government (and not France in general as is depicted in some media).
Frankly, if solutions haven't been found after all these years, they simply haven't been sought. Going from first principles, if one wants to solve migrations and whatnot, just let them develop themselves properly.
Well because Uranium just isn't gas or petrol, there's no way around it. There's a very limited amount of buyers and most of the actual value is in the power plant. Nobody ever got rich from a Uranium mine.
What will probably happen is they will sell it cheaper to China instead and get less money.
Well, there are other exports. There might even be oil. The neighbor Chad has some and isn't any better.
Checked, oil has been discovered in Niger in the 70's...so yeah... And they are still poor?!
And even then, they should have exchanged a package: Exploitation rights against revenue with costs of infra + maintenance deducted.
There needs to be roads or trains assuredly and whatnot for those exports to transit.
Who cares if they get a better bargain from the US, the Chinese or whoever else. That's competition. That's supply and demand. That's how they should get the most of what they have. No need to be so sour about it.
Graft from the elites is the reason, not supposed unequal contracts from western companies.
Also, wealth of nations comes from production, not just mere exploitation of ressources.
Countries like Germany got very rich early by producing valuable things instead of selling their ressources. On the contrary, Portugal had dozens of gold mines, and now it's much poorer than european industrial powerhouses.
It's a system. The elites duplicity from both side lead to bad contracts.
This happens in any African country, whatever the colonizer. For instance, Nigeria is hardly dominated by foreign powers, yet it is a prime case of crony capitalism.
Maybe because Niger produces 20k barels per day and Saudi Arabia 12 millions per day? What are we even comparing here?
With such a low production of petrol (of a similar level as metropolitan France actually) I don't think it's even worth selling it at all, it has more value as a strategic reserve for the military.
Yes for sure, that's okay to sell it cheaper with the market rate to China if it's what they really want.
First, production is not equal to reserve.
Second, the national demand is different, notably since there are less people.
I mean, at some point, arguing for arguing should stop. The facts are here. No need for the information to be grossly deformed...
And by the way, I'm not sure what other thing we're disagreeing about, to be clear, I don't think wars in Niger (and all ancient colonies in Africa) are endogenous.
Corruption, corruption, corruption, and incompetence. Qatar doesn't have illiterate and corrupt clowns running the show. Seriously, I'm African, and I don't understand why people find it difficult to say the truth to us.
We are our own problem because we keep giving birth to more people than we can handle and voting in buffoons to run the economy.
Can't change the head when they are protected and protect some French interests. Some people definitely find kakistocratic regimes advantageous. How can one do business then? Some foreign investors even have to leave some countries because it's impossible to do proper business. That's a shame.