French military era ends in West Africa as Senegal reclaims last base
France has formally ended its military presence in Senegal by transferring its last base to Senegalese authorities.
The base handover occurred during a ceremony attended by high-ranking officials from both nations.
The retreat is part of France's broader reduction of military presence across West Africa.
The last post, Camp Geille in Ouakam, Dakar, was handed over to Senegalese administration in a solemn ceremony attended by Senegal's Chief of General Staff, General Mbaye Cisse, and Major General Pascal Ianni, head of the French military command in Africa.
This transfer came after a number of prior restitutions, including the Marechal and Saint-Exupery sites in March, the Contre-Amiral Protet installation in May, and the Rufisque military post in early July.
The exit was agreed upon by a Franco-Senegalese joint committee on May 16 and is consistent with the two nations' military cooperation pact from 2012.
France and Senegal began discussions in February 2025 to consider the exit, following similar withdrawals in other West African countries.
According to Euronews, this event coincides with the rise of anti-French sentiment in the region and signifies the end of France's military presence in West Africa.
France has been progressively diminishing its military presence in Africa, most notably retreating from the Sahel region of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger due to diplomatic issues and growing public resistance.
France's military exit in West Africa in recent years
France handed up its last military facility in Chad in January 2025, just as tensions between the two countries worsened.
Chad went on to accuse France of undermining its democracy, particularly in light of a January 8 attack on its presidential palace by a group of 24 people, which strained bilateral relations even more.
Chad's move comes barely a year after France's cessation of military cooperation with Gabon in September 2023, following the overthrow of President Ali Bongo Ondimba.
The coup, led by military personnel who questioned Bongo's third term, installed General Brice Oligui Nguema as leader of the transitional government.
France, which had generally supported pro-Western regimes in Africa, promptly cut military ties with Gabon's new administration.
In 2022, Mali expelled France's ambassador, causing France to withdraw its troops and the Takuba force, thereby ending their military partnership.
France's 4,500-strong Operation Barkhane army withdrew from Mali in August 2022, while French forces left Burkina Faso in February 2023.
The 400-member Operation Sabre, which was sent in 2009 to combat armed organizations such as al-Qaeda in the region, discreetly withdrew after Burkina Faso's military-led government requested their leave in January, citing a four-week withdrawal deadline.
France's military departure from Senegal reflects a larger rethinking of France's position in its former colonies, where anger of neocolonial ties, security failings, and perceived intervention in internal matters has pushed governments and citizens to want complete autonomy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Here's why Jeffrey Epstein's tangled web is conspiratorial catnip
These are salad days for the likes of Joseph Uscinski, who spends his time peering down rabbit holes and poking in the dark spaces where weird and woolly things grow. There are loads of conspiracy theories out there, the granddaddy of them all being the conjecture surrounding John F. Kennedy's assassination. But most tend to fade and be forgotten, said Uscinski, who teaches political science at the University of Miami, where he studies public opinion and mass media, with a focus on conspiracies. 'Only a select few will attract a large number of believers, have movies made... get talked about by politicians,' Uscinski said. The Jeffrey Epstein saga has all the elements of one of those top-shelf intrigues, with an added Shakespearean twist — a president whose political rise has been fueled by outlandish conspiracy theories and now faces a backlash from some of his most faithful devotees, as he tries to wriggle free from a deceitful web of his own design. Delicious, especially if you enjoy your schadenfreude served piping hot. The known facts are these: Epstein was an eye-poppingly wealthy financier, luxe man-about-Manhattan and convicted sex offender who sexually trafficked women and girls. In 2008, he agreed to an exceedingly lenient plea deal with federal prosecutors that resulted in a 13-month prison sentence, with freedom granted 12 hours a day, six days a week, under a work-release program. A decade later, an investigative reporter at the Miami Herald identified scores of alleged survivors of sexual abuse by Epstein and some of his associates. In 2019, a new federal criminal case was brought against him. About a month after being arrested, Epstein was found dead in his cell at a jail in New York City. Investigators ruled Epstein's death a suicide. An A-list fixture of the upper-crust social scene, Epstein has been linked in court documents with a galaxy of celebrities from the worlds of Hollywood, business and politics. It's an article of faith among some true believers — particularly within the MAGA movement — that a secret list of those serviced by Epstein's sexual enterprise exists somewhere in the bowels of the federal government, hidden by agents of the hated, anti-Trump 'deep state.' In a Fox News interview in February, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said a list of Epstein's clients was 'sitting on my desk right now to review,' with its public release seemingly just a matter of time. Then, like one of Trump's threatened tariffs, the list — or 'list' — abruptly vanished. There was no such thing, the Justice Department announced earlier this month, along with a finding that Epstein had, in fact, killed himself and was not, as some assert, murdered by forces wishing to silence him. A piqued president urged everyone to move on and forget about Epstein. 'Somebody that nobody cares about,' sniffed Trump, who moved in many of the same social circles as Epstein but now downplays their yearslong friendship. All in all, conspiratorial catnip. 'Saying there are files and then saying there aren't files... setting up some expectation for revelations and then insisting that actually there's nothing there' has only deepened the well of suspicion, said Kathryn Olmsted, a UC Davis conspiracy expert who's studied past instances of government deflection and deception involving the CIA and FBI, among others. Unlike some of the crackpot stuff she's heard — like Bill and Hillary Clinton murdering Joan Rivers to cover up Michelle Obama's transgender identity — the conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein have at least some grounding in reality. 'He was very rich and powerful and he associated with some of the most powerful and richest people in the world, including members of both the Democratic and Republican parties,' Olmsted said. 'And he was trafficking girls. There's an actual crime at the heart of this. It's not just something that people have made up out of thin air.' That's the thing that gives the Epstein conspiracy theories their distinctly frothy frisson: a blending of vital ingredients, one very old and the other comparatively new. False allegations of child abuse date back to the blood libel of the Middle Ages and the assertion that Jews tortured and murdered Christian children as part of their ceremonial worship. From there, a through line can be traced all the way to the 2016 'Pizzagate' conspiracy, which claimed that Hillary Clinton and her top aides were running a child-trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza parlor. Truly vile stuff. Take that ancient trope and marry it to a modern lack of faith in the federal government and its institutions and you're gifted with an endless source of lurid speculation. 'The number of threads that you can pull out of [the Epstein] fabric are many,' said retired University of Utah historian Robert Goldberg, another conspiracy expert. 'And they're going to be long.' Democrats, for their part, are eagerly fanning the controversy, as a way to undermine Trump and drive a wedge in his granite-firm base. 'He said he was going to release [the complete Epstein files] and now he's saying there's nothing to see here and appears to be wanting to sweep the whole thing under the rug,' Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who played a prominent role in the Jan. 6 congressional hearings, taunted on MSNBC. 'There is overwhelming bipartisan, popular demand, congressional demand, to release all of this stuff.' Indeed, Trump need only look in one of his gilded mirrors to see what's driven years of fevered Epstein obsession. 'He built a coalition of people who have these beliefs,' said the University of Miami's Uscinski. 'And I think he's learned that once you build a coalition of conspiracy theorists, you can't get them to [stop believing]. They came to him because he was telling them what they want. He can't turn around and do the opposite now.' Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
OPEC Is Playing The Long Game
'There is no peak in oil demand on the horizon,' the head of OPEC, Haitham al Ghais, said last month in Canada. Demand will continue to increase as global population grows, he added. And OPEC will be there to respond with what supply is necessary. OPEC is now playing the long game. Fast-forward a month and Reuters is reporting on 'signs of strong demand more than offset the impact of a higher-than-expected OPEC+ output hike for August', not to mention now chronic worry about Trump's tariffs. In fact, after OPEC+ announced the bigger than expected supply boost, prices rose, not least because not everyone boosting supply was boosting it fast enough. When OPEC+ first said they were going to start unwinding their production cuts, agreed back in 2022, reactions were varied. Some argued it was all about trying to kill U.S. shale again. Others said the Saudis, the biggest cutter, simply had no other choice any longer after the cuts failed to produce significantly higher prices. Yet others claimed OPEC in general and Saudi Arabia specifically are trying to please Trump—by hurting some of his biggest donors. OPEC itself has not endorsed any of these versions of events. The fact remains that OPEC is reversing the cuts, boosting oil supply—but prices are not tanking as so many prominent energy analysts said they would, and are still saying they would, later this year. Of course, this is because of factors unrelated to OPEC, namely geopolitical developments such as U.S.-Chinese trade talks and Canadian wildfires, as well as yet more EU sanctions against Russia. But OPEC certainly wouldn't mind these factors supporting prices, if not more U.S. rig additions. OPEC is playing for market share. This is one of the most popular explanations for the group's latest moves among analysts. After curbing production for a couple of years and surrendering market share in the process, now some of the world's biggest producers want this market share back. This is going to take a while. Bank of America's head of commodities research, Francisco Blanch called it a 'long and shallow' price war. 'It's not a price war that is going to be short and steep; rather it's going to be a price war that is long and shallow,' Blanch told Bloomberg a month ago. He went on to say the target, especially for the Saudis, is U.S. shale, which has become more resilient in recent years but is still vulnerable to lower oil prices because of its higher costs. There is also another aspect to the change in OPEC approach, as detailed by Kpler's Amena Bakr. It's about group cohesion, Bakr wrote in an analysis for The National. With so much non-compliance with the cuts, those that were compliant needed to have their concerns addressed, too. 'To restore a sense of fairness, an orderly plan to return the barrels gradually was needed to avoid a free-for-all situation that would drown the market in supply,' Bakr explained. OPEC doesn't even need to try very hard this time, because geopolitics is working in its favor. Last month, prices climbed immediately on the suggestion that the U.S.-Iran talks could escalate into missile action, after the Iranian defense minister threatened strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East should the two fail to reach a deal on Iran's nuclear program. U.S. Congress work on fresh sanctions against Russia, targeting specifically its energy industry also served as a driver for higher prices, undeterred by EU plans to try and stop importing even petroleum products made with Russian crude, possibly in light of the EU's track record of success with the anti-Russian sanctions. Yet there is another factor helping OPEC stay on top: non-OPEC supply. The Financial Times reported in mid-June that the international supermajors have not made many new discoveries lately. Since 2020, new non-shale discoveries have averaged 2.5 billion barrels a year, the FT noted, citing a Goldman Sachs report. This is just 25% of the average annual in new discoveries for the three years prior to 2020. In other words, all the talk about non-OPEC swamping OPEC and taking the upper hand on international oil markets may have been a little premature—as may be the case of IEA demand projections. The IEA has been notoriously bearish on oil demand, repeatedly citing rising EV sales, even though these sales in the U.S. are set for a serious decline. In Europe, EV sales are on the rise thanks to the return of subsidies but how long these are going to last is anyone's guess. China is always the country everyone points to when it comes to EVs, and yet China's oil demand is still growing—although peak talk is intensifying there as well, including from its own state oil majors. In this situation, OPEC essentially does not need to do anything but sit and wait. Price-sensitive U.S. shale will slow down, lack of new discoveries will crimp the growth potential of the supermajors, and prices will rise, because peak demand does not mean a sharp drop afterwards. In fact, even if we have reached peak oil demand, the most likely next stage in demand evolution is a plateau at a level that would need to be maintained. OPEC would no doubt be happy to help do that. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
