Middle Nation West Africa Briefing

Let me let me let me actually, like, sort of properly start it with a kind of introduction to what we're doing so that for the for the for the video that we upload, it's clear. Okay. We're gonna be doing regional updates from different parts of the Muslim world and a different well, throughout the world, in fact. We have in the Middle Nation Telegram group, we have a regions section, and we're having people who are in or from particular regions in the world to discuss the news and events and to provide us context for what's going on in different parts of the world so that we can have sort of authentic, genuine, on the ground, Insha'Allah, objective information and analysis from those different regions. And we invite everyone to come and join us on Telegram into these regions groups to help fill out our own analysis of those areas and our information to to help us have more sort of grassroots on the ground information and insight from the regions themselves and from the people in the regions themselves.

And also, we see the regions groups as a vehicle for building connections, building networks, building bridges between the Muslims all over the world in in the diaspora and in other parts of the of the Muslim world so that we can all be informed about what's going on with so that we can all be informed about what's going on in the world from, as they say, directly from the sources of where these things are happening rather than having to rely upon, say, Western media or otherwise sort of partisan, subjective, agenda driven media sources that you might find online, social media, and so forth. So this is going to be our sort of inaugural session. We're going to hopefully, inshallah, be doing weekly briefings on every area, on every region that we cover in the Middle Asian groups regions groups. This is going to be brother Tariq, who's the lead for West Africa, And we're going to talk we're going to take a few what what brother Tarek identifies as important recent stories, recent events in his area. And he will tell us about the stories, provide the commentary and analysis, and inshallah will discuss those things inshallah.

So I'll turn it over to you brother.

Miss, I'm living in West Africa. I'm of African descent, but not from West Africa. But this is where I'm living, and it's of vital importance to me to to to do this anyway. So I'm I'm I'm very glad to have this opportunity. So I'm gonna speak about six articles, some of them from as early as 2022 and some of them from 2025.

So let's get right into it. So the the first article written by Nick Thurs in 2022 for the responsible statecraft. This is a a website or an organization set up by George Soros, who who's an American that's against the military industrial complex. And that's what this this organization is about, responsible state statecraft. The the report says decades of US military aid has been a disaster for Nigerians.

So, of course, Nigeria is a very important country in West Africa. It's a country that has a very high GDP in it and a population of more than 200,000,000 people. So The United States has heavily invested in a security partnership with Nigeria over the last twenty years is how it starts. So the article is talking about how, Nigeria and and The United States got into an agreement. Basically, the United States military and and industrial complex.

And agreement, it it it finances it's to finance Nigeria to buy a lot of weapons from The United States. But, really, it's it's to to we all know is is to get them involved in a kind of trap that that leaves them financially financially trapped. So it says in January 2017, a Nigerian airstrike aimed at Boko Haram terrorist left 200 civilians dead. More than 200 civilians dead or wounded, and they didn't get any terrorists from it. And this is something we see a lot of times with airstrikes.

Later that year, The United States agreed to sell Nigeria 12 more Super Tucano warplanes, including thousands of bombs and rockets for $593,000,000. The largest US foreign military sale in Africa to date. Last month, just last month, so this article was written in March 2022. The US approved a possible $990,000,000 deal for 12 attack helicopters. So it keeps it keeps going about what the what the billions of dollars that the the military industrial complex complex has supplied in weaponry and in finance to to the Nigerian government.

And it says also for its part, The United States from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen has its own long standing issues with civilian harm and failures of accountability. The the the the article is concerned with the accountability. Even jokingly or unjokingly, I'm not sure, says that despite despite the supposed assistance, there has been no repercussions from The United States as if The United States even cares about about, assessing the repercussions of of, what they're doing here. So it's an enormous, arms deal that they've that they've been doing with Nigeria and leading to a lot of civilian harm and no accountability. They're not thinking about what they're doing, and they're not reducing the terrorist problem.

And god knows what else you know, what kind of advice they're giving to them when they give them these weapons and and where they should be used without getting conspiratorial. That's why I just I just say, god knows. So that's the first article.

I I would just comment to put it in in in context or to put it rather than in context, say this is entirely consistent with the pattern of American military assistance all around the world, especially in the global South, that you could you can you you know, you could come up with a map of so called where you could get, say, human rights abuses, countries that have gross human rights violations, strife on the increase, strife, violent conflict, so forth that are on the increase. And it will that you could superimpose that chart upon another chart of American military assistance and they would be parallels. All of the trends would be parallel. The more the mill the the more America sends military assistance, the more the rights violations, the more the strife increases, the more the violence increases, the more terrorism there is in line with the more assistance that they get from The US. And America provides this kind of military assistance, so called military assistance, obviously not for the purpose of protecting the population.

They're doing it for the purpose of protecting their own corporate interests and their own control in this or that country. And, obviously, logic tells you that their control over another country's resources, including the the resource their human resources, the resource of their labor, the resource their natural resources, and other resources of their economy will necessarily also come along with violations of the rights of the people, safety of the people. So in fact, it works the opposite. They're not there to protect the people. They're there to protect their interests, which puts the people themselves in danger.

And this is what you see in country after country after country, whether it's in Nigeria or anywhere else in Africa or anywhere in Latin America. This has been the experience of the global South that if America is is coming saying that they wanna help you, you you should run away because it's it's very dangerous for you Because, obviously, they're only interested in serving their own interests. For America in the global South always means that it is against your interests, That America's interests and the interests of the indigenous domestic population of this or that country, of any country, the interests are in conflict. And they secure America secures their interest through this type of military funding. That's one of the ways.

It's through this military funding. And you can see what we mentioned that after they performed this airstrike allegedly to attack Boko Haram in which no one from Boko Haram was affected. But what is it? You said 500 people or 200 people?

Two. 200.

They they they executed this strike in which 200 innocent civilians were killed. And after having done that, they were rewarded with more weapons. The the you talk about sort of the the repercussions of their harming their own population. The repercussion is a reward. That's the result.

The more you harm your own population, the more you increase the insecurity of your own population, the more you terrorize your own population, the more America will reward you because you that's what we're sending you the weapons to do. That's why we're the weapons in the first place so that you can When you prove that you can do that successfully, we will reward you with more because you have proven that you have understood the assignment. And so they build their America builds their loyalty. This is historically, anyway. This is what they've been doing.

They build their loyalty through financing this or that of the other country army, this or that of the other country's military. And when the military becomes dependent, when any this any anyone should be very, very concerned when your national army, when your military has become dependent upon a foreign power for its for its equipment, for its supplies, for its weapons, for its training, for being able to pay its its officers and its soldiers and its staff and so forth. When they become financially dependent upon a foreign power, then that army no longer serves your nation. That army no longer serves your nation. It has become a private military contractor.

Your internal army has become a private military contractor for The United States. You've turned your own national army into a mercenary army for the Americans. That's just logic. That's just business. That's how it works.

They will naturally start to undertake military strategies and and and priorities that are in alignment with America's interests, not with, in this case, Nigeria's interests or in any other country, whether it's in Africa or Latin America or Asia or anywhere else. Your army will now prioritize and and base its strategies on what's in the interest of their financiers, the interest of their suppliers, the interest of their benefactors, not the interest of the population that they're supposed to serve and protect. And this is what America has done all around the world. And like I say, you can get a chart of the countries that America provides the military assistance to and superimpose that on the chart of violations and oppression and persecution and oppression and strife and violence and conflict and terrorism and so forth in that same recipient country, and they will the trend lines will be in parallel with each other. So this this is how America has operated.

Nigeria is not a special exception, but Nigeria is, as the brothers said, I think it's the most populous country in Africa. And I think it is the yeah. And I think it is the large economy in Africa. So and not to mention they have the oil and other natural resources. Extremely important.

And I think to any objective census census data, Nigeria is actually among the majority country according to the to the way they do their census figures. So I think that was talking about this one time, they they they include as Christians, basically, anyone who isn't a Muslim. Even if they're even if they're, call it, you know, the the the sort of ancestral beliefs and the the the the other indigenous values that, you know, animist beliefs and so forth, They they include that as Christian. In fact, the actual number of Christians in Nigeria is much smaller. Of actual Christians, it's much smaller than what they reported being.

And that the the Muslims, I believe, are the majority in Nigeria. So this we're talking really about a Muslim majority country, largest country in Africa, largest economy in Africa, I think one of the fastest growing populations as well in Africa, in the world. I think it's one of the largest fastest growing populations in the world. So important country for American interests.

For Nigeria. Yeah. This is this isn't even something that's new. It's something they've been stuck in since the times of the colonial powers. Obviously, for Nigeria, that was that was Great Britain, and they would use the same tactics.

And, yeah, I mean, if I if you may if you may let me get on to the next article, that's exactly what it's saying.

Okay. Yeah. Let's let's proceed.

So it's saying so this one is by FPRI, Foreign Policy Research Institute, who who've been established for seventy years. Usually, they don't have much on a not much on a of an agenda. This article is quite recent, and it's it's saying the West the West's loss of the Sahel, not only Russia's doing. So the Sahel is sometimes Nigeria is involved in that, but it's it's usually the countries directly under the belt of the Sahara Desert, Niger, Mali, including Sudan as well, so all the way from the East. But because we're focusing on on West Africa, non Mali, you have Senegal as well, Mauritania, and so on.

It says Russia's sudden influence in the South is likely to fade in time as did the domination of other world powers in the region. So U U US fixation on Russia in the Sahara is a destruction, not a policy. The United States could take away lessons both positive and negative from the experience of France in the region. So this this is written by an American, and he's writing in defense of America and what they can do to to avoid problems going forward. So we have to take that in into account because he has his own agenda.

But he's absolutely right. He's absolutely right. And the last point in his introduction is Africans have run out of patience with proxy rivalries and seek partnerships, not not patronage. So Africans are are fully aware that this has been happening for too long. The reason this article is even written is because of the the three countries in the Sahel where military powers recently seized power from the government, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger.

And they withdrew from ICOWAS and set up their own pact, the alliance of Sahara states. This is this is obviously big news. It's it's very big news for West Africa. It it from as early as 2023, they knew what they were getting themselves into. And this, you know, was well, a year and a half later, and we're still nothing has stopped this movement.

This movement's only getting stronger of of of these countries taking their own power back. What what do I mean by that? So the established the establishment of ECOWAS some years ago and a joint currency and this idea that ECOWAS must be funded by Europe and by France is is something that the that is is detrimental to Africa. It's keeping Africa financially dependent, just like the military industrial complex, but in a different way, in a more financial way. And this article is basically saying that anyone from the West who is attributing Russia to be behind this is wrong.

Yes. Russia is is in cooperation and assist assisting the current movements in Africa somewhat. But what I like about this article is it's saying that the initiative is coming from the African countries. The the the these Sahel states are very rich in resources. There there's enough resources there, especially agricultural resources, to to feed the population and especially gold resources to finance anything that they need to finance.

But a lot of these resources are exported, and food is reimported back into the country in the form of rice and bread. I did my research, and West Africa alone imports 7,000,000,000, just in one year, imports $7,000,000,000 of rice and $4,000,000,000 of wheat even though and this is this is the staple food. This is what you'd see eaten in West Africa from morning to to to evening. You won't see much other food being eaten, which is just unbelievable, really. Why they need to spend so much and why they need to believe that this is this is what this is the only thing that they need to eat is is beyond me, to be honest.

Yeah.

Do you know from where are they importing this food?

Well because they're in Europe. From America and Europe, and most exports are going to America and Europe, including Russia. But but recently, there's been there's been more cooperation with Turkey. There's been more cooperation with other agricultural Muslim countries. Yeah.

There has been. But now a lot of the food is imported from European countries. Every West African country is importing from a different European country. It's like everyone's got a piece of the pie, you know, and America too. And a lot of the gold is being exported, like, for example, to America, Canada, Russia.

It depends who who what they can do for them in return for that gold. And, obviously, the country itself doesn't get much much in return in in in real life, but it's just the the deception is still ongoing. So the the article discusses sorry for might continue. The article discusses France. France is in retreat in the region and seems to understand the jig is up.

Ironically, Emmanuel Macron is the Western leader, most willing and able to listen and learn. And he says ironically here because even recently, France France had their own military industrial complex happening in in Mali. But, no, that that didn't work for too long. It was only a couple of years before there was too much popular opinion and to and and the military rejected the French military help and and the European military help in in in Mali. Right.

So I'm just gonna say I'm just gonna read out the concluding paragraph of the article. The United States does not need another summit to begin listening. It's time for it to put talking points aside and admit it never really heard Africans and see what partnership means to them. So now listening to to Africans, listen to why they think what they think, and they say what they say and and why there is three countries now that are not part of ECOWAS, which really was was set up by France. And even though even when they when they when they left ECOWAS, France sanctioned sanctioned these three countries quite heavily with economic sanctions, just like The United States now is is is sanctioning other countries.

If it is to get to a two point o rules based order, lend some ears to African voices, and acknowledge its past errors, the country might be served well. So still, United States and and and West Africa can benefit from each other. It can be a win win scenario for both and not just a win win scenario between the collective West. That's this article.

Yeah. It's interesting because no matter even even okay. What that what that article is saying, the position that the is taking is a reasonable position, but even Africa's historical experience with America, with the West generally, they always sound like they have good intentions. They always sound like they mean well. They always say the right things, but then they do something completely different.

So, I mean, from my from my perspective, I mean, I know that the article isn't written for Africans. The article is written for Americans and trying to advise American policymakers and so forth about how they should approach Africa, which is basically basically telling them telling American policymakers, these are the tactics and the techniques that you should use to get what you want out of Africa. So in fact, the perspective that they're taking are the tactics and techniques that you should use to try to get you what you want from the Sahib, meaning that they're still approaching it from the same mentality, which is that what they have is yours and you should try to get it by by hook or by crook. But the the past techniques have been exposed and understood, so now you need to up your game a little bit and try and come with a more seemingly compassionate perspective. And rather than just talking over them the whole time, let them talk, pretend to listen, and then still insist upon your way, which is to try to get what you want from them.

Rather than saying nothing that is theirs is yours, except the reality that what is in the Sahel belongs to the Sahel. Their resources are their resources. They're not yours. You have no right to them whatsoever. And in fact, you shouldn't you shouldn't be able to put dependency upon them by artificially creating food insecurity for them by forcing upon them agreements because this is how that came about, what you're talking about with the importation of food that they can provide for themselves.

Yeah. Or they can they can secure their food. Whatever they can't provide for themselves, they can get from the region. They can get from African parts, from African from other African countries. They can certainly import food, all the food that they need from their own neighbors rather than trying to import it from The United States.

But this is this is a dependency that has been created through coerced agreements by the American government and previously by by the Europeans, by the French, forcing upon these countries the importation of agricultural goods that that that they don't need and and imposing restrictions upon what themselves grow and what they themselves can domestically consume because they've been put they they did this to Egypt, and they've they've done it country after country after country. One of the main things that they've done is to try to impose food insecurity and a lack of any food sovereignty upon all of the nations in which they want to plunder so that those countries will feel that there is some kind of reciprocation happening in that if we don't let you take our gold and diamonds and cobalt and oil and so forth, then we'll go hungry. So in in reciprocation, you give us rice and bread and food and so forth, and we will agree to you pillaging our resources. But but this is all imposed artificially from from external powers just for the purpose just the same as the as I say with this with this rider. You're looking at these these countries as pawns.

You look you're not looking at them as even, you know, full proper, authentic, legitimate nations that have every right to their own sovereignty and have every right to their own resources. You're still looking at at them as your resources that you have to just find a way how to get to them rather than respecting them. Like, for example, you wouldn't you wouldn't find the just imagine if that article was written about the relationship between America and France rather than America and the Sahel. It wouldn't be written in this way at all.

And there's there's language here that says that there was that that France came to eradicate the Islamic terrorism, and and these uprisings have stopped France from eradicating Islamic terrorism. So now what it's indicating or what it's implying is that these new governments are are gonna help Islamic terrorism survive.

Oh, I I argument is that that that these governments are incapable of combating the the extremists, and that and that they need France's help to do that even though it has been proven time and time again in the in the past that France was actually helping the the the militants, organizing the militants, funding the militants. And we just saw what happened recently where Ukrainian meridaries were actually training so called Islamic extremists, Islamic militants, so forth. The whole Islamic extremist, Islamic militant phenomenon in Africa and everywhere else is exactly it's a it's a complete fabrication. It's manufactured by the West for the West's interest to try to convince and and this is the thing. This he's right in saying that the jig is up because like in in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and elsewhere, Senegal, they they've they've identified.

We know who's behind this, and it's you. And so the actually, the best thing that we can do to fight these people is to get you out of here. Because just like with with Nigeria, and like I was talking about earlier, every every time you see the increase in military assistance, so called, from the West, you see an increase in the the the justification that they have provided for that military assistance. In other words, we're gonna help you. We're gonna help your army because we see that you're having a problem with militants.

But the militant problem only increases when you come. The militant problem only ever increases when you increase your military to help us fight them. So I think that the that the countries have identified, no. The best way that we can fight these fabricated threat is by getting rid of the ones who are famine, because you never really helped to fight them. You never you created the problem, and you're there to perpetuate the problem, not to resolve the problem.

So, you know, these countries have have correctly recognized that the real threat is you people. And and maybe this person is saying that that that even that false rationale is no longer gonna work either in this hour. So you have to you have to as he said in the in the end, you know, listen to their listen to their voices and so forth. But, of course, like I say, it's it's not it doesn't mean listen to them, and actually follow what they say. It means just listen to them and let them get it out of their system what they wanna say so that they they they think that you're listening and they sponsor it, but, actually, you wouldn't want to.

On on this topic of of trusting them, the the the West Africans particularly have learned, you know, historically that it's it's difficult to trust the collective West. And it's already it's already instilled in them growing up. They they have certain words for the West that they don't have for the rest of the world. But that's something maybe future articles will and and future developments will uncover more of. Yeah.

The the the the the other four articles are not as not as big of a, let's say, an event. So one of them is Mali seizing three tons of gold from a Canadian company. This Canadian company was found to to to to what was it? Let let me read the article. So to resolve to to to get around tax to get to get around tax, there's there's obviously a tax for exporting and mining gold in in the country that must go to the government, and this is completely understandable.

The the this article is from AP News. It says Mali is one of Africa's leading gold producers where it has struggled for years with jihadi violence and high levels of poverty and hunger. The military seized power in 2020, and the government has placed foreign mining company is undergoing pressure as it seeks to shore up revenues. However, in in November, I think this was written in 2024, the CEO of Australian company Resolute Mining and two employees were arrested in the capital by paying $80,000,000 to the authorities to resolve a tax dispute and promise to pay a further 80,000,000 in the coming months. So you have Australia, Canada.

It's still the collective West. It's still the the the same, face, really, with with just different names. And and this a a very similar article, I'm gonna, group it with it, is even more recent. It's from this month. The Ghanaian president urges to cover $156,000,000 amid, the USAID funding freeze.

The Ghanaian president particularly concerned with the shortfall that could hinder essential programs in preventing malaria in the fight against HIV and and so on. He has ordered urgent measures to cover the deficit in financing some government programs that emerged after the funding from the US Agency for International Development, USAID, had suspended the aid. So the reason why I bring this article as well is that the the these countries, Ghana and Mali, have realized are showing that they re they realized that they have to fend for themselves. They have to fight fight back and not rely on on the West for economic development or or anything really in terms of foreign relations. Is there any comment on those two before?

Well, I would say I would say that, you know, in line with what we've been talking about, the theme the theme for America's and the West, the collective West's relationship with Africa has always been to impose artificial dependence on the part of the African countries. So even this this claim about, you know, for example, the the USAID being being frozen, being stopped, all you're going to do is make Africa realize how little they actually need you. Yeah. Because they never they never needed your money in the first place. The only reason that they need your money at all is because you're taking all of theirs.

You're you're absolutely pillaging their resources and pillaging their economies, And you will yourself force a reassessment by those countries of their relationship, their economic relationship with you and their relationship with your with your companies that are

just

fraudulently exploiting African resources. And and the the incredibly lopsided deals, the lopsided negotiation negotiated contracts, which you you can barely call negotiated because they're coerced. You create this dependency, you create this instability, you create this insecurity, you create this economic weakness in the country, and then you can force on them these types of contracts for the benefit of your companies, the benefit of your multinationals, for the benefit of your owners and controllers of global financialized capital. And then act like you're being charitable when you give them some kind of aid. You created the dependency.

So if you're gonna now deny them this so called aid, then they're in a actually, all of the cards are with them. All of the cards are in their hand. If they just decide to, for example, nationalize their resources and take control of their own resources, nullify their contracts with your companies, and then force you to renegotiate with those companies. They don't need any of your money. All of these countries are rich countries in terms of their resources.

They're much richer than you in their resources. That's why you're there in the first place to try to get those resources because you do not have them, meaning they are richer than you naturally. And the only way that you can I mean, it's it's absurd, actually, for there to even be such a thing as so called western charity or western aid to Africa? That in and of itself is an absolutely obscene concept because of the extent to which you have plundered that continent for resources that you don't have. You've stolen from them for centuries and then pretend that you need that that you're giving them aid and then pretend that they need your aid.

The only reason that they quote unquote need your aid is because you've taken everything from them, And and that's an ongoing relationship, this extractive relationship of the of the collective West towards Africa. But Africa is in a position now where they can end that relationship or they can anyway renegotiate the terms of that relationship in their own interest. And that's what you see happening with this with this case in Mali, where they're saying no, in fact. If you're going to be here and you're going to do work here, you're do money here and so forth, you're not even paying the taxes that you agreed to pay. This is the extent to which they really believe that the countries that they are pillaging have no right to anything.

They don't have a right to the resources that you're exploiting, and they don't even have a right to to receive taxes from you for the work that you're doing or for for for for the for the resources that you're extracting. Well, all of this can be renegotiated. There's no there's no reason that this has to stay as it has been. And when you are removing so called aid from these countries, that that's all you're doing is going to is going to spur them to reassess their whole relationship with you and reassess and reevaluate the extent to which their dependency and their need of you has been fabricated from the beginning. And then they can construct a much more reasonable, a much more rational, and obviously, a much more fair and more sustainable economic model and economic relationship with the West.

And I Inshallah, I think that's what's happening.

I could've I could've put an article talking about the the positive direction Africa has taken, but there are thousands. For example, a lot of this is what's interesting to me. The the one the ones that are most interesting to me are people that repatriate. So they they leave. They live in the West for ten years, fifteen, sometimes twenty.

And when they come back, they establish something that's I mean, here's a good example. Sergio Manet, football player. I think he plays in Saudi now, but he lived in the West for a long time. And now he lives in Saudi, and he's opened currently the biggest it's it's functioning as the biggest supplier of fuel and engine oil to the whole of West Africa. And that's that's that's probably the best example.

I I've seen it myself. Let alone him realizing that he's he's publicly said that the values in the West were not the values that he thought they were. And just this information giving it back to his people up Senegal, it it's it's a big shift in their perception. It's they're starting to understand that even their values are a resource that you can't find in the West, let alone their their their actual physical resources. The the last two are about France.

So France is definitely exiting now. They've they've been they've been expelled. One from two months old from two months ago, France begins military withdrawal from Chad as influence in Africa wanes. Senegal also request departure of French troops and are not compatible with country sovereignty. So Chad is is a good example.

The slogan that they used themselves for this happening and their celebrations on the streets said Chad is free. France is out in Arabic because Arabic is their language. So they believe now that they've become free, which signifies that just recording of of their military assets, France recording their military assets, is is itself somewhat a another day of independence. But it it marks the beginning of the return of French equipment. This is a article on the Guardian, about to mention.

This marks the beginning of the retention return of French equipment stationed in the Chadian capital. The foreign minister Abdur Rahman said that the country is determined to maintain constructive relations with France in other areas of common interest. Until then, there are about 1,000 troops stationed in the country and has long been seen as the West's last dependable ally in the Sahel as military juntas with increased disdain for France's continued presence installed themselves in power via a series of coups since 2020. So even the Guardian here, we can see their blatant agenda and their blatant which side they're taking here in regards to what's happening in Burkina Faso, Mali, and so on.

Can you can you explain that a little bit? About what side they're taking just in case it's not clear to people?

Yeah. So I'll try my best. So what they're say what they're saying here is that this they've they've picked out a statement. I'm sure this man, the foreign minister of Chad, has also said things against the French military, hence why they're leaving. But they've chosen this statement that they remain determined to maintain relations in areas of common interest for the benefit of both peoples and that thankfully, there are still 1,000 French troops stationed, and it's the West's last dependable Allah.

The word dependable there, it's it's an adjective that doesn't need to be there. But by putting it there, they're they're saying that the others are not dependable. You they can't be trusted. They're up to no good. And these military juntas with increased disdain for France continues continued presence.

It's not a disdain for France's continued presence. It's just realizing I have no need for it. You know? I don't go to sleep with my hat on because I have no need for it anymore. I've already used it, I now take it off and put it to this site.

That's that's what's happened with France. They've they've just been put to the site, but it's it's been marketed as disdain and uprising and military takeover and anti French sentiment and so on and so forth, which is true, which is happening. And there is definitely a faction of, like, Pan African uprising, but but but that's not the general feeling and the general picture. That's not what goes on in in the general person's mind here. They have things to get on with, and they have an economy to build.

And what's been happening with France all the way back for the centuries that they've been present in Africa hasn't led to the development and opportunity that they wanted to. I think that'll I think that'll do for the articles.

I mean, it's also also quite gap, I think, that that of the West. I was like, oh, you the only reason you don't mind me.

Sorry, bro.

Like, why don't you just don't have to be there? But, you know, it's it's gaslighting. Like, well, if you like me, then you'll let my army be there. And if you don't let my army be there because you don't like me. It's something it's something personal.

Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Just make decisions for your own country out of the the interest of your own country and everything isn't about you. You know, everything isn't about France.

Everything isn't about America. Everything isn't about the West. The the to have foreign troops in someone else's country, to have your your troops, army, your military in someone else's country needs a very strong rationale. It needs a very strong justification for why anyone else's army should be in someone else's country. And that rationale didn't exist or that rationale isn't strong enough, reasonable enough, logical enough, sound enough, based enough, then for what possible reason would they stay?

What country wants to have another country's military inside their country? For what possible reason? Unless there is a reason and like I say, if it's a very strong reason. If that strong reason doesn't exist, then the default position is that no country has other people's military in it. That's the default position.

But they're making it sound like the only possible reason must be animosity and hostility and you just don't like us. And this is like gaslighting. Like, in in order to prove that you are dependable, in order to prove that you're not hostile, you have to let us put our army in your country. This is really gaslighting and manipulation. And that the the countries in Africa and in any way in West Africa are are only awake to this reality because I think they've been awake to this reality, but now they are increasingly in a position to exert their own sovereignty and exert their own will and national pride and interest in their own nation to be able to to say no.

If there isn't a strong reason that's in our interests for why you should be here, then you shouldn't be here. And it's it's not necessarily that it has to be anything personal and then you can sort of twist our arm into trying to prove that we're not hostile to you. Because then you should understand also there's a there's an implicit threat. When they say that there's disdain for for for us or or what have you. It it means that you're potentially or or when they say that you're not dependable, it's potentially saying that you're hostile.

Your country has become hostile to us, which means that now your country poses a threat to us, which means that now we have to do something about you. You understand, all of the former colonized countries around the world, not just in West Africa, not just in Africa, but everywhere that has suffered from Western exploitation and subjugation. Everyone understands that the West's Okay. That what the West is interested in in your country, what they want from your country is exactly the same thing that will make your country strong. You understand?

They want control of the resources. And control of the resources, if you control the resources, that will make you strong. But they want control of the resources. So their interest in your country is inextricably linked to or even you can say it's just synonymous with your subjugation. There's no way around it.

Their interest in your country is to is to weaken your country because your your you have the same interest. A foreign power has the same interest as the say say Mali, as an example. Mali is interested in the same thing that France is interested in, which is control of Mali's resources. Now, how does that not put you in conflict? And if you are fundamentally in conflict in terms of what your fundamental interests are, how can there be a collaborative cooperative relationship?

When when lit your fundamental interest is against my fundamental interest. We're we're literally at odds over the the most fundamental issue. Control of my resources. You also want control of my resources. Where's the common ground?

Where's the where's the middle ground? Where's where's the meeting place? There isn't one. You know? It's like it's like if if a thief comes up to rob you on the street, well, he wants all my money.

I also want all my money. So let's agree to give you half my money. So I just get robbed a little bit less than if if you rob me completely. There's no there's no common interest here. Because the same way that that that that Molly for example doesn't say, want to control the the the resources of friends.

No one would accept this as as you have any claim. Mali has no claim, on on, you know, the the the fields of France, on the agricultural products of France or the wine vineyards of France. You know? They have no that Mali has no claim on that and they don't claim to have a any claim on that. They don't have any interest in that.

That's yours.

Or to send troops?

Yeah. I I need to send troops to secure my interests in your country. What this is just on the face of it. If you apply it to any other country, this is the extent to which people have, the the the colonized mentality and the colonized, the normalization of colonization in our perspectives of the world. That that the western countries can even talk about countries in the global South as if they have interests there that are valid.

As if as if there there are supposed to be some acceptable limits to the sovereignty that the countries in the global south have over their own resources. You don't talk about that about any other country or any other, you know, hemisphere, any other group of countries, You know, but it's just taken as a given that France is supposed to have or or America is supposed to have or the collective West is supposed to have, some kind of a say, in what happens with the resources of any country in the global South. The how is this acceptable? Outreachly, it's not. Outreachly, it's completely unreasonable.