Skip to main content

Peter Zeihan

Geopolitical Strategist

Share
Commentary

What explains West African coups? Will France respond?

Share

Peter Zeihan

Geopolitical Strategist

Share

A string of recent coups throughout West Africa and the former French African colonies has sparked emergency foreign policy debates around the globe. But what is causing all of these coups, and how will France respond to them?

Straight Arrow News contributor Peter Zeihan reviews major historical differences between French African colonies and British colonies, and argues that these differences have profound impacts on Africa today. Zeihan suggests that these observations can help people understand why this string of coups is occurring, and can also reveal how France might (or might not) respond.

Excerpted from Peter’s Sept. 28 “Zeihan on Geopolitics” newsletter:

There’s been a surge in coups throughout African countries, and there’s a common thread connecting them — most are former French colonies.

Looking back at the colonial histories of the French and the British, two very different strategies were implemented. The Brits opted for the economic route — targeting regions and areas of strategic significance. The French took a more ego-driven approach and focused on the biggest swaths of territory.

While the Brits primarily wanted a cut of the profits from their colonies, the French wanted to be in charge of everything, so they hollowed out systems and put their people in charge. Fast forward to the present day, the French have packed their bags and left shells of colonies primed for coups and prone to external influence from China and Russia.

As these coups run their course, French involvement could take on a number of different forms. That’s what makes this so interesting…. the French are a wildcard, and their involvement comes down to how they see themselves.

Hey, everybody, Peter Zion here coming to you from Colorado. If you’ve been watching places like Africa, you notice that the Coos are just happening fast and furious. Honestly, I’ve lost track of how many we’re at now at least five. But almost all of them have been former French colonies. And that is not just a correlation, there’s some something very real there linking them together. And so I think it’s worth exploring how this is going down and why and why it’s here. And that will allow us to project forward to the future a little bit. So the French colonial experience was significantly different than that at the British one. The Brits were in mercantile Empire corporate empire, they saw the Empire as a way to make money. And the French had a very Keeping Up with the Joneses sort of approach. So French, like the way the maps looked, whereas the Brits like the way their accounting books looked, so the Brits would go out. And they would look for connection nodes, productive lands, if they can find them, but mostly with the nodes where everything links together, and they, they put themselves in there and take a cut of everything coming through. They didn’t try to reinvent the wheel, they just tried to profit from the wheels coming through. Whereas the French who was more an issue of national prestige, so the bigger the block of territory on the map, the better and it was kind of a sorry, French people, kindergarten approach to geography, trying to make your political map look great, whereas the Brits were concerned with the economic map. So I think the best example I can give you in this region, in West Africa, there’s a country called cynical, which is a sizable chunk of territory, former French colony, but there’s a little bite right out of the middle of that along the Gambia river called country today, the Gambia and the Gambia is a former British colony. So the productive capacity mostly is on the land that the French controlled, but all of the ins and outs and the logistics and the trade was controlled by the Brits. And so the Gambia was a much wealthier colony with generate a lot more income for the locals and for their British overlords were Senegal, even today is kind of not the best. And this is reflected throughout the entire region. So the Brits would go after things like the Nile so them to come to Egypt, or they’d go after the Highland plains that have good agricultural zones and minerals, like say, South Africa, where as the French will take the entirety of West Africa, regardless of what was there. So a lot of the French territories are in a place called the saya hell, which is where the desert of the Sahara starts to get a little bit of moisture. And so you know, you can have some people and then transition into the rainforest. It’s the transition zone that economically is subpar. And based on climate shifts, whether from human mates climate change, or things going back, it moves, what areas are dry and wet. So the French were able to take control of it very easily, because the local populations were in many cases nomadic, but they never had dense population patterns. They never had a lot of cultivation, they never had a lot of money, they never had a lot of wealth, but the French could control it. And these are the territories that are now going through these political ossification and breaks. And now, so no coincidence that it’s the French territories that are not as durable politically and economically as the former British colonies. The second issue is one of political culture of the empires, since the Brits were primarily concerned with the income that they could get. They did not want to disrupt the initial original political and economic classes. They just installed their colonial overseers as governors general above that, and allowed the locals to run most businesses themselves and purchase took the cuts. The fridge No, no, no, no, no, it was about French control. So one of the first things that the French did whenever they came into a community is get rid, by death or otherwise, of any one who was in charge. And then the French colonials would take over everything directly. They might not understand the local economy, they not might not speak the local language, which could be a problem. But more importantly, it meant that when the French colonials finally did leave, they didn’t leave a whole lot behind. I mean, the Indians will tell, you know, end of stories that horrible, the Brits were to them. It’s a case to be made there. But the Brits never really disrupted the political leadership. And so when the Brits did leave, the Indians were perfectly capable of ruling the country themselves. In the case of the French, the French might have helped set up a specific group to take over when the French left, but that group because it was hand picked would probably be resented by everyone else who was there. And by the time you fast forward to the 2020s, some of these dudes have been there for 5060 years are the sons of the original deputies. And the locals don’t think very highly of them. And so they’re getting offed. In this sort of situation. The French have gotten pretty good at interpersonal relationships, and they’re very comfortable at backing the big man who’s in charge of everything, but because they never got into that kind of societal management of the broodish, they’re not very good at fighting the support mechanisms, aside from say, guns intelligence that are necessary to allow these big men leaders to actually run their countries in a capable way. So you have a coup, the whole institution of government fails and is replaced by something else, it becomes very much a blank slate. Now, in blank slate scenarios, it’s fairly easy for an outside power to come in, get them on the ground floor with something new, and try to soup French power a little bit, because the French power got wiped away when it got turned into a blank slate. And this has provided significant opportunities for say, the Chinese and the Russians to go into an area where they were never the colonial powers where the historical experience is minimal. It actually makes some real gains. But this is temporary, it’s a blank slate and nothing is established, and the French are still much closer. And the local language is typically French. And you’re dealing with it in an environment where the French know how to play this game. Because if it’s someone else’s institutions, the French are perfectly capable of coming in and making their own blank slate. Remember, the French are much less squeamish than the Anglos about things like suitcases of cash, and assassinations. And so what we’re seeing right now is the French are trying to decide their plan of attack, do they want to wipe out the people who wiped out their people, double blind slit? Or do they just want to see if these people can successfully consolidate, in which case they go with that suitcase of cash, or are the French or the Chinese going to get their first and set up their own institution in which case the French have to come in and assassinate someone. These are all viable options from the French point of view. But perhaps the single most important thing that people miss when they’re looking at the French and their former colonies is because the French ran their empire is basically a giant ego stroking machine as opposed to a money making machine. That means that they don’t actually have significant national interests in most of these countries. And there is nothing like say, the British exposure to a place like Gibraltar, where it’s actually a strategic interest or India where there’s an economic interest, the French are capable of just swallowing their ego and walking away. But I think the most important thing to think about here is the French have worked more comfortable in this environment and know how to manipulate it. They’re better at assassinations, if they don’t like the way it’s going to go. And because they don’t have any sunk national interest in this stuff. They have no problem walking into someone else’s experiment and just destroying it. So don’t think of French intervention or not intervention in West Africa as the sort of thing you might see out of the Americans or the Brits where even the Russians, the sunk costs here are low. And that makes the French perhaps the most interesting thing that can happen in an international tussle unpredictable because it all comes down to how the French see themselves and everyone else’s details.

More from Peter Zeihan

Latest Commentary

We know it is important to hear from a diverse range of observers on the complex topics we face and believe our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions.

The commentaries published in this section are solely those of the contributors and do not reflect the views of Straight Arrow News.


Latest Opinions

In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum. We hope these different voices will help you reach your own conclusions.

The opinions published in this section are solely those of the contributors and do not reflect the views of Straight Arrow News.

Weekly Voices

Left Opinion Right Opinion

Tuesday

Left Opinion Right Opinion

Wednesday

Left Opinion Right Opinion

Thursday

Left Opinion Right Opinion

Friday

Left Opinion Right Opinion