Niger's junta withdraws from Lake Chad anti-Islamist force
Niger's ruling junta has quit a regional force fighting armed Islamist groups in west Africa's Lake Chad area, cementing an acrimonious split from former allies in the region.
The decision to exit the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) was announced in a bulletin on state television over the weekend. The move 'reflects a stated intent to reinforce security for oil sites', the bulletin stated, without providing further details.
The MNJTF was formed in 2015 by Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria in the wake of increasing jihadist attacks across their territories. At its peak, it had an estimated 10,000 troops and fought many armed groups, especially Boko Haram and its offshoots. But any serious progress has been hampered or even undone by poor collaboration and equipping, analysts say.
'The force was never that effective, said Ulf Laessing, the Bamako-based director of the Sahel programme at Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a German thinktank. Its decline, he added, was 'good news for jihadists and it is bad news for villagers on the lake side, fishers or farmers who just want to go about their business but who will now get less military support'.
Niger's exit from MNJTF came days after the junta's leader, Abdourahmane Tiani, was sworn in as president until 2030 under a new charter that suspended the constitution and dissolved all political parties.
Niger has also isolated itself from the Economic Community of West African State (Ecowas), after Ecowas imposed a range of sanctions following the coup that ousted the democratically elected president, Mohamed Bazoum, in July 2023.
Within two months of the coup, it had joined the splinter Alliance of Sahel States (AES) along with Burkina Faso and Mali, where there have also been military takeovers since 2020.
Since then, AES has introduced new biometric passports to replace the old regional passports and on Monday, it announced a 0.5% levy on imported goods from Ecowas states.
Ikemesit Effiong, managing partner at Nigerian geopolitical risk advisory SBM Intelligence, said the levy put an end to 'a long history of free trade across the western Sahel' and could change the dynamics of Ecowas's negotiations with AES.
'When squared with Ecowas's statement commitment to keep open trade and borders with AES states, I think this [levy] will force Ecowas to drop its kids' gloves strategy and be more forceful with the AES,' Effiong said.
It remains unclear what impact Niger's withdrawal from the MNJTF will have on a security agreement signed with neighbouring Nigeria last August. Both countries share centuries of history and a border that spans 1,000 miles but Nigeria-led Ecowas's push for a rapid return to democratic governance has caused friction between both countries.
Effiong said recent moves in the capital, Niamey, which has been seeking new military and economic partners since expelling French troops in 2023, are unsurprising.
'Niger has been pulling out of all its main regional bilateral and multilateral commitments, much of which it sees as western influenced or inspired,' said Effiong, who noted that MTNJTF had received military and intelligence aid from western partners in the past.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
'We strengthen Glasgow every time we invest in our communities'
This centre has been at the heart of the Ruchill community for years. It has hosted youth clubs, parent and toddler sessions, and much more. It wasn't just a building – it was a space where neighbours came together, isolation was tackled, and opportunities were created. Local people were led to believe the centre had a future. In May, the SNP City Administration proposed closing the centre permanently – despite those earlier commitments. The building has been closed since 2020. Local campaigners – including Ruchill Community Council – worked tirelessly to make their voices heard. Backed by Glasgow Labour councillors, their efforts forced the administration to delay their closure plans. But this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Ruchill is not alone. Across Glasgow, vital community facilities are being lost or left to deteriorate. From Possil to Pollok, facilities that once served communities are being shuttered, mothballed, or handed over without proper support. These aren't just administrative decisions – they are political choices, the costs of which are borne by people who rely on these spaces for connection, support, and resilience. When community centres close, we lose more than just bricks and mortar. We lose the after-school clubs keeping children safe, mental health support groups, and clubs combating loneliness. These centres are a lifeline – and it is shameful that they are being treated as expendable. Glasgow Labour will continue to stand alongside communities like Ruchill and call for both more funding from the SNP Scottish Government and political will and creative solutions from the council. In conjunction with the local community, Glasgow Labour successfully forced the SNP-led administration to defer the closure decision, but our work isn't done. We're calling for a clear, despite promises, and also upon the Scottish Government to allocate what Glasgow needs to ensure we maintain our community infrastructure. The people of Ruchill deserve better. Glasgow's communities deserve better. It's time that we valued communities. Because when we invest in communities, we don't just save buildings – we strengthen the very fabric of our city.
South Wales Argus
9 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Nigel Farage and the thousands funding Reform UK's campaigns
The big donors included Bassim Haidar, the Nigerian-born Lebanese entrepreneur who gave the Tories more than £670,000 under Rishi Sunak, was there, as was Arron Banks, the former UKIP donor who spent millions campaigning to leave the European Union. Farage was given a rousing introduction by Oswald's owner, clubland impresario Robin Birley, who donated £25,000 to Reform a few weeks before the general election. Reform reportedly took in more than £1m that night at Oswald's in an event that was part of a wider strategy of attracting big money. 'Reform is where the money is going now,' says former Conservative donor Mohamed Amersi, having paid £25,000 to attend the Oswald's fundraiser. Using millionaire money England to fight the Welsh Senedd election, using English-developed policies and with an English MP as its current leader and main campaigner in Wales. A long way from being the man of the working classes. Andrew Nutt, Bargoed
Spectator
9 hours ago
- Spectator
My plan for Prevent
In the autumn of 1940, British cities were being bombed every night by large aeroplanes whose provenance was apparently of some considerable doubt. While the public almost unanimously believed the conflagrations to have been caused by the Luftwaffe, the authorities – right up to the government – refused to speculate. Indeed, when certain members of the public raised their voices and said 'This is all down to Hitler and Goering and the bloody Germans!', they received visits from the police who either prosecuted them for disturbing the peace or put their names on a list of possible extremists. The nights grew darker. The number of towns and cities subjected to these nightly bombardments widened. Very soon everybody in the country knew somebody whose home had been destroyed or who had themselves been killed. The government was forced to take action, and so in November 1940 it came up with what it called its 'Prevent' strategy, which aimed to protect British cities from further destruction. In the introduction to this new policy, civil servants listed possible vectors for these bombing raids and top of the list, by some margin, were the Slovaks. A senior intelligence officer told the public: 'The greatest threat to our nation today is from the Slovaks. We must train our people in how to spot Slovaks and report them to the police whenever they can.' The Germans were also mentioned, further down the list of possible perps, but the wording here was heavily caveated. Yes, some Germans may have been involved, but over all the German population was utterly devoted to peace and regretted the nightly infernos every bit as much as did the people who suffered under them. Our own air force was directed to drop its bombs on Bratislava, Kosice, Poprad and (the consequence of an understandable confusion over the names of the two countries) Maribor. And yet for some mystifying reason, the raids on Britain did not lessen. This seems to me exactly the response of our government(s) and most importantly of Prevent to the threat from Islamic terrorism. Let me be clear: I am not remotely comparing Muslims with Germans or Islam with National Socialism – I am simply saying that, in effect, this is what our government would have done in 1940 if it had been gripped by the same cringing witlessness and outright lying that possesses seemingly all of our authorities today when it comes to terrorist attacks upon the British people. You may be aware of the manifestly stupid quote from the Prevent halfwits that people who believe that 'western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups' are cultural nationalists at risk of becoming the kind of extremists who end up murdering people. People who believe the above probably consist of 70 per cent of the British population and, if his latest speeches are anything to go by, include the Prime Minister. And yet this stuff pervades everything Prevent puts out, while at the same time exonerating Islam and in some cases even those Muslims who do become terrorists (because they have suffered, you see). If people who support Brexit or worry about immigration are extremists, you're going to get pretty high figures So, for example, Bolton council's useful 'Prevent' handbook singles out 'right-wing extremists' as being at the forefront of terror attacks in the UK, and these extremists include people who are cultural nationalists: 'Cultural nationalism is ideology characterised by anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment narratives, often emphasising British/English 'victimhood' and identity under attack from a perceived 'other'.' Islamic terrorism is also mentioned – but, again, heavily caveated. Then there's Prevent's own list of people who were picked up under its guidelines: 45 per cent were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (230); 23 per cent were linked to Islamist radicalisation (118); the rest were related to other radicalisation concerns, including incels and those at risk of carrying out school shootings. But then I suppose if people who proclaim their support for Brexit or worry a bit about immigration are extremists, you are going to get pretty high arrest figures. If you add into the mix the fact that simply to associate Islam with terrorism you are guilty of Islamophobia, then you can see why we're in the state we're in. Incidentally, when she was Prime Minister, Theresa May, to her credit, drafted a new introduction to the Prevent guidelines which made it clear that the biggest threat to British security was al Qaeda, not Tommy Robinson et al. But that message does not seem to have sunk in with those in Prevent. It seems almost pointless to run through the facts. The truth is that almost every fatal terrorist attack in Britain since 2001 has been perpetrated by Islamists. All bar three. Have these people got a twisted or perverted understanding of Islam, as Prevent insists? I haven't a clue. I am no Quranic expert. I'm just, y'know, taking their word for it. Further, 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network's investigations are related to Islamism (2023). Some 75 per cent of MI5's surveillance cases are Islamists. There are around 40,000 potential jihadis being monitored by our security services. There is not the remotest doubt as to the provenance of the gravest terror threats to our country. It's not the shaven-headed nutters with swastika armbands. It is Islamists. Nigel Farage's answer is to sack everyone working in Prevent. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But I may have a better one. Scrap Prevent entirely and initiate a new network of monitoring and reporting which focuses solely on Islamic terrorism. Junk the sixth-form philosophising over what is meant by the term 'extremist' and locate the problem precisely where it is: somewhere within our Muslim communities, even if we accept that our Muslim communities may not want them there. In short, get real and tell the truth. This kind of approach worked pretty well 85 years ago.
