World
Tech Official Pushing TikTok Ban Could Reap Windfall From U.S.–China Cold War
Among the many hawks on Capitol Hill, few have as effectively frightened lawmakers over Chinese control of TikTok as Jacob Helberg, a member of the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission. Helberg’s day job at the military contractor Palantir, however, means he stands to benefit from ever-frostier relations between the two countries.
Helberg has been instrumental in the renewed legislative fight against TikTok, according to the Wall Street Journal. “Spearheading the effort to create the bipartisan, bicoastal alliance of China hawks is Jacob Helberg,” the Journal reported in March 2023. The paper noted collaboration between Helberg, previously a policy adviser at Google, and investor and fellow outspoken China hawk Peter Thiel, as well as others in Thiel’s circle. The anti-China coalition, the Journal reported this past week, has been hammering away at a TikTok ban, and Helberg said he has spoken to over 100 members of Congress about the video-sharing social media app.
From his position on the U.S.–China commission — founded by Congress to advise it on national security threats represented by China — Helberg’s rhetoric around TikTok has been as jingoistic as any politician. “TikTok is a scourge attacking our children and our social fabric, a threat to our national security, and likely the most extensive intelligence operation a foreign power has ever conducted against the United States,” he said in a February hearing held by the commission.
Unlike those in government he’s supposed to be advising, however, Helberg has another gig: He is a policy adviser to Alex Karp, CEO of the defense and intelligence contractor Palantir. And Palantir, like its industry peers, could stand to profit from increased hostility between China and the United States. The issue has been noted by publications like Fortune, which noted in September 2023 that Palantir relies heavily on government contracts for AI work — a business that would grow in a tech arms race with China. (Neither the U.S.–China commission nor Palantir responded to requests for comment.)
“It is a clear conflict-of-interest to have an advisor to Palantir serve on a commission that is making sensitive recommendations.”
Experts told The Intercept that there didn’t appear to be a legal conflict that would exclude Helberg from the commission, but the participation of tech company officials could nonetheless create competing interests between sound policymaking and corporate profits.
“It is a clear conflict-of-interest to have an advisor to Palantir serve on a commission that is making sensitive recommendations about economic and security relations between the U.S. and China,” said Bill Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and scholar of the U.S. defense industry. “From their perspective, China is a mortal adversary and the only way to ‘beat’ them is to further subsidize the tech sector so we can rapidly build next generation systems that can overwhelm China in a potential conflict — to the financial benefit of Palantir and its Silicon Valley allies.”
Big Tech’s China Hawks
Helberg’s activities are part of a much broader constellation of anti-China advocacy orbiting around Peter Thiel, who co-founded Palantir in 2003 and is still invested in the company. (Helberg’s husband, the venture capitalist Keith Rabois, spent five years as a partner at Thiel’s Founders Fund). Thiel, also an early investor in Pentagon aerospace contractor SpaceX and weaponsmaker Anduril, has for years blasted the Chinese tech sector as inherently malignant — claims, like Helberg’s, made with more than trace amounts of paranoia and xenophobia.
Thiel’s remarks on China are characteristically outlandish. Speaking at the MAGA-leaning National Conservatism Conference in 2019, Thiel suggested, without evidence, that Google had been “infiltrated by Chinese intelligence” — and urged a joint CIA–FBI investigation. In 2021, at a virtual event held by the Richard Nixon Foundation, Thiel said, “I do wonder whether at this point, bitcoin should also be thought [of] in part as a Chinese financial weapon against the U.S.”
For Thiel’s camp, conflict with China is both inevitable and necessary. U.S.–China research cooperation on artificial intelligence, he says, is treacherous, and Chinese technology, generally, is anathema to national security. As he inveighs against Chinese tech, Thiel’s portfolio companies stand by with handy solutions. Palantir, for instance, began ramping up its own Made-in-the-USA militarized AI offerings last year. Anduril executives engage in routine fearmongering over China, all the while pitching their company’s weapons as just the thing to thwart an invasion of Taiwan. “Everything that we’re doing, what the [Department of Defense] is doing, is preparing for a conflict with a great power like China in the Pacific,” Anduril CEO Palmer Luckey told Bloomberg TV last year.
Palantir is making a similar pitch. In a 2023 quarterly earnings call, Palantir Chief Operations Officer Shyam Sankar told investors that the company had China in mind as it continues to grow its reach into the Western Pacific. On another Palantir earnings call, Karp, the company’s CEO and Helberg’s boss, told investors the more dangerous and real the Chinese threat gets, “the more battle-tested and real your software has to be. I believe it’s about to get very real. Why? Because our GDP growth is significantly better than China’s.” Even marketing images distributed by Palantir show the company’s software being used to track Chinese naval maneuvers in the South China Sea.
Thiel is not alone among Silicon Valley brass. At a February 2023 panel event, a representative of America’s Frontier Fund, a national security-oriented technology investment fund that pools private capital and federal dollars, said that a war between China and Taiwan would boost the firm’s profits by an order of magnitude. Private sector contributors to America’s Frontier Fund include both Thiel and former Google chair Eric Schmidt, whose China alarmism and defense-spending boosterism rivals Thiel’s — and who similarly stands to personally profit from escalations with China.
TikTok, Bad! China, Bad!
Repeated often enough, anti-TikTok rhetoric from tech luminaries serves to reinforce the notion that China is the enemy of the U.S. and that countering this enemy is worth the industry’s price tags — even if the app’s national security threat remains entirely hypothetical.
“Just like tech had to convince people that crypto and NFTs had intrinsic value, they also have to convince the Pentagon that the forms of warfare that their technologies make possible are intrinsically superior or fill a gap,” Shana Marshall, an arms industry scholar at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, told The Intercept.
Marshall said bodies like the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission can contribute to such conflicts because advisory boards that encourage revolving-door moves between private firms and government help embed corporate interests in policymaking. “In other words,” she said, “it’s not a flaw in the program, it’s an intentional design element.”
“The tensions with China/Taiwan are tailor made for this argumentation,” Marshall added. “You couldn’t get better cases — or better timing — so grifters and warmongers like Helberg and Schmidt are going to be increasingly integrated into Pentagon planning and all aspects of regulation.”
Forcing divestiture or banning TikTok outright would not trigger armed conflict between the U.S. and China on its own, but the pending legislation to effectively ban the app is already dialing up hostility between the two countries. After the House’s overwhelming support last week of the bill to force the sale of the app from Chinese hands, the Financial Times reported that Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin accused the U.S. of displaying a “robber’s logic” through legislative expropriation. An editorial in the Chinese government mouthpiece Global Times decried the bill as little more than illegal “commercial plunder” and urged TikTok parent company ByteDance to not back down.
“There are a lot of defense contractors that are discussing the China threat with an eye out on their bottom line.”
Of course, self-interest is hardly a deviation from the norm in the military-industrial complex. “This is the way Washington works,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. “There are a lot of defense contractors that are discussing the China threat with an eye out on their bottom line.”
Although it’s common for governmental advisory boards like Helberg’s U.S.–China commission to enthusiastically court the private sector, Amey said it would be important for Helberg to make clear when making policy recommendations whether he’s speaking as an adviser to Palantir’s CEO or to Congress, though the disclosure wouldn’t negate Helberg’s personal interest in a second Cold War. Such disclosures have been uneven: While Helberg’s U.S.–China commission bio leads with his Palantir job, the company went unmentioned in the February hearing. Given the ongoing campaign to pass the TikTok bill, Helberg’s lobbying “certainly raises some red flags,” Amey said.
He said, “The industry is hawkish on China but has a financial interest in the decisions that the executive branch or Congress make.”
The post Tech Official Pushing TikTok Ban Could Reap Windfall From U.S.–China Cold War appeared first on The Intercept.
“A Crime Without a Name”: what is genocide?
So many people are speaking about genocide at the moment, but so few of them seem to know what the word means. I would like to take a moment to consider where the word comes from, and the nuances of the UN definition. Of the 7.2 million Jews in 1939 who were living in areas Continue reading »
Honduras Ratchets Up Battle With Crypto-Libertarian Investors, Rejects World Bank Court
A group of prominent international economists is applauding the recent move by Honduran President Xiomara Castro to push back against American crypto investors attempting to seize billions in public money from the Central American nation.
The crypto crew is exploiting a dispute mechanism nested inside the World Bank, created by an obscure provision of the Central America Free Trade Agreement. Castro has deemed the forum, called the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, or ICSID, to be an illegitimate usurpation of Honduran sovereignty and has hit upon an elegant solution: She has taken steps to withdraw Honduras from ICSID. The crypto crowd is crying foul.
The spectacular battle playing out in Honduras and inside global financial institutions blends the 19th-century American legacy of gunboat diplomacy and banana republicanism with a contemporary twist: The lead group of investors battling Honduras by exploiting international financial institutions is made up of a band of crypto-libertarians.
The fight presents an almost-impossible-to-believe scenario: A group of libertarian investors teamed up with a former Honduran government — which was tied at the hip with narco-traffickers and came to power after a U.S.-backed military coup — in order to implement the world’s most radical libertarian policy, which turned over significant portions of the country to those investors through so-called special economic zones. The Honduran public, in a backlash, ousted the narco-backed regime, and the new government repealed the libertarian legislation. The crypto investors are now using the World Bank to force Honduras to honor the narco-government’s policies.
Since Castro took office in 2021, the World Bank’s ICSID has seen investors bring no fewer than 10 cases targeting her government. The largest case, brought by U.S. corporation Próspera Inc., seeks more than $10 billion in compensation, which would equal roughly a third of the country’s GDP. Próspera, rooted in the world of crypto finance, describes itself as a “platform [that] powers the development of new cities in special economic zones that maximize generalized prosperity and wealth creation.” A city the company set up in Honduras accepts bitcoin as official tender.
In an open letter published on Tuesday, the economists argued that Castro’s decision was a smart move. “We view the withdrawal as a critical defence of Honduran democracy and an important step toward its sustainable development,” reads the letter, which was organized by Progressive International, a left-leaning coalition.
“For decades, international arbitration courts like ICSID have allowed corporations to sue states and restrict their freedom to regulate in favour of consumers, workers and the environment. Since 1996, governments in Latin America alone have been forced to compensate foreign corporations over $30 billion, intimidating regulators away from raising minimum wages, protecting vulnerable ecosystems, and introducing climate protections, among other domestic policy priorities. We find scant economic evidence that mechanisms like ICSID stimulate meaningful foreign direct investment, in return.”
At issue are so-called ZEDEs created by previous governments of Honduras. The law that established ZEDEs — short for Zone for Employment and Economic Development — effectively carved out portions of Honduras and turned them over to American investors, who operate as effective sovereign governments. The ZEDEs could one day control 35 percent of Honduras’s territory, according to the United Nations, which has said that the zones raise human rights concerns.
It took enormous political muscle more than a decade ago to force the ZEDEs into law. They only became possible when Castro’s husband, Manuel Zelaya, was removed in a U.S.-backed coup in 2009.
After Zelaya was ousted, a new election brought in President Porfirio Lobo Sosa, who quickly moved to undo Zelaya’s social reforms, attacking workers rights and reneging on land reform efforts. The Supreme Court struck down the first version of the ZEDEs law as unconstitutional, but after the constitution was amended and four new justices were added to the Supreme Court, the law stuck in 2013.
Lobo Sosa’s rise was fueled not just by U.S. support but also by narco-trafficker cash, according to U.S. prosecutors who convicted Tony Hernández, the brother of former President Juan Orlando Hernández, for trafficking “monumental” amounts of cocaine. Juan Orlando Hernández was Lobo Sosa’s successor and was himself convicted of drug trafficking earlier this month in a U.S. federal court. He was president of the National Congress, Honduras’s legislative body, from 2010 to 2013, and was a primary mover of the ZEDEs legislation. He also led the overnight takeover of the Supreme Court that enabled their implementation.
Prosecutors in the Tony Hernández case linked the brothers with Lobo Sosa in their sentencing memorandum. “Between 2004 and 2019, the defendant secured and distributed millions of dollars in drug-derived bribes to Juan Orlando Hernandez, former Honduran President Porfirio Lobo Sosa and other politicians associated with Honduras’s National Party,” prosecutors wrote.
So to put the ZEDEs in context: The radical “free market” intervention was only jammed into law as the result of a military coup and the stacking of the Supreme Court. The ZEDEs were then enacted and implemented for the benefit of U.S. investors by two narco-governors. On March 8, in celebrating the conviction of the former Honduran president who shepherded the law into being, and then oversaw its implementation, Attorney General Merrick Garland said that Hernández — a man propped up throughout his tenure by his allies in the State Department — oversaw “a narco-state where violent drug traffickers were allowed to operate with virtual impunity.”
Zelaya was overthrown ostensibly over his attempt to extend his presidency to what was deemed an unconstitutional second term. Yet Hernández breezily ran for reelection in 2017 and claimed victory amid an absurd amount of irregularities, all of them brushed aside by a supportive Trump administration. The years of chaos and violence led to a surge of migration toward the U.S. border.
The U.S. had no evident problem with that freewheeling narco-state while Hernandez was in office and remained useful, yet once Castro took power in a backlash to the U.S.-fueled corruption, the United States suddenly rediscovered its respect for the rule of law and the sanctity of contracts with U.S. investors.
Castro quickly and successfully moved to repeal the ZEDEs law in the face of intense bipartisan U.S. pressure to maintain them. The American response has been to repudiate the very idea of Honduran democracy and sovereignty, with investors using the World Bank’s ICSID to force the new Honduran government to respect the policies carried out by the former president now sitting behind federal bars.
Among the dozens of signatories to the Progressive International praising Castro’s decision to exit the arbitration court are prominent South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang; Chilean Gabriel Palma, of the “Palma Ratio of inequality”; American economist Jeffrey Sachs; former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis; British economist Ann Pettifor; and Indian development economist Jayati Ghosh.
Melinda St. Louis, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, has been fighting the crypto crew for years and welcomed Castro’s move. “The Honduran people overwhelmingly opposed the ZEDE law, and when the Honduran legislature unanimously repealed this law, that should have been the end of the story,” she said. “This is just the latest example of corporations abusing this ISDS mechanism to challenge environmental, health, land use, and other public interest policies around the hemisphere. Honduras was wise to withdraw from the World Bank venue where many of these cases are brought as an important first step.”
In its case before the ICSID, Próspera retained a top lobbying firm, employing former Democratic lawmaker Kendrick Meek, to pressure Honduras to pay up.
Last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, came out against the effort by Próspera to exploit the dispute resolution system to undermine Honduran sovereignty. “In the case of Próspera,” they write, “a ZEDE located largely on the Honduran island of Roatán, investors have created a governing council where 44 percent of members are appointed by the private company and 22 percent are elected by landowners in a system where their number of votes is proportional to the size of their property.”
A conference Próspera held on Roatán last year signaled the company’s ethic. “Próspera aims to be the best jurisdiction for the crypto/web3 industry in the world, and we welcome the best ideas on how to achieve that with a sound legal framework,” said Chris Wilson of Próspera in publicity materials that described the confab as “specifically designed for legal hackers, crypto lawyers, jurisdictional polymaths, and businesses that want to create better laws to do business under.”
The company’s response to a request for comment on the letter from the economists was representative of the unusual corporate structure it has been able to implement. The company’s communications director told The Intercept that a response to our questions would be submitted by Jorge Colindres, representing the “Office of the Technical Secretary.”
Colindres’s email signature alludes to the public-private nature of the corporation, reading:
Jorge Constantino Colindres
Technical Secretary – Próspera ZEDE
Zona de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico
República de Honduras
Manager – General Service Provider
Colindres responded as a government official. “Attached you will find my office’s statement on the unconstitutional withdrawal from ICSID by the Honduran government,” he said. His statement insisted:
Próspera ZEDE is [a] local government and special economic zone of the Republic of Honduras. It is governed by the Technical Secretary, a Honduran citizen by birth, appointed by the Government of Honduras and empowered by article 329 of the Honduran Constitution and the ZEDE Organic Law to oversee the implementation of new policies and rules designed to foster economic development, facilitate job creation, attract national and foreign direct investment, and safeguard the fundamental rights of the workers and residents of this special jurisdiction. National and foreign companies alike are bound to comply with Próspera ZEDE Rules, which are Honduran rules, as they have been adopted by a local government of Honduras with the legal blessing of the country’s Executive Power, National Congress, and Supreme Court of Justice.
Colindres claimed that the ZEDEs had resulted in more than $100 million in foreign investment so far, and that Castro had not gotten approval from the National Congress to withdraw from the World Bank’s dispute body. “We stand proud of our achievements in job creation and investment attraction, which run in stark contrast to the job killing policies of the national government, and we continue undeterred in our mission to transform the Honduran economy and catalyze prosperity through the oasis of economic freedom and rule of law that Próspera ZEDE offers to the Honduran people,” Colindres said.
Fernando Garcia, a presidential commissioner appointed by Castro to oppose the ZEDEs, said that while the Honduran Constitution requires the National Congress to ratify new international treaties, it does not require the executive branch to notify the legislature ahead of a withdrawal.
“The ICSID convention establishes the possibility of a sovereign state’s withdrawal from its convention,” Garcia told The Intercept. He added that the arbitration court has already legally accepted Honduras’s withdrawal, effective August. This does not, he said, “prevent those who have requested arbitration from proceeding in accordance.”
The post Honduras Ratchets Up Battle With Crypto-Libertarian Investors, Rejects World Bank Court appeared first on The Intercept.
Even Mentioning “Occupation” at the Oscars Is Antisemitic, Some Jewish Hollywood Figures Say
English director Jonathan Glazer poses in the press room with the Oscar for Best International Feature Film for “The Zone of Interest” during the 96th Annual Academy Awards at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, Calif., on March 10, 2024.
Photo: Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images
The backlash against even the mildest-mannered protests for Gaza at the Oscars was predictable. Artists, musicians, and actors who wore a pin symbolizing a call for a ceasefire in Israel–Palestine are being called antisemitic.
“The Zone of Interest” director Jonathan Glazer, however, went further in his Oscars acceptance speech: He actually said something. After winning the Academy Award for best international film, Glazer objected that his own Jewishness and the memory of the Holocaust were “being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October — whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza.”
The largest offense here, if the backlash is to be believed, was that Glazer dared speak of context — of the Israeli occupation. He was so bold as to suggest that history did not begin on October 7.
As a letter signed by more than 900 people, described as Hollywood “creatives and professionals,” and published Monday made clear: The very word “occupation” was off limits.
“The use of words like ‘occupation’ to describe an indigenous Jewish people defending a homeland that dates back thousands of years and has been recognized as a state by the United Nations, distorts history,” the letter said, never mind that the military occupation of the Palestinian Territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights, has been recognized as such by the United Nations since 1967.
But the letter went on to say that “occupation” did more than just distort history, it invoked history’s worst antisemitic tropes: “It gives credence to the modern blood libel that fuels growing anti-Jewish hatred around the world, in the United States, and in Hollywood.”
The indisputable fact of Israeli occupation on Palestinian land is now apparently a “blood libel”: a millennia-old antisemitic canard, which rose to prominence in the Middle Ages, that Jews murder Christians to use their blood for cultish rituals.
To be against virtually any policy that Israel can claim to justify as self-defense would be antisemitic.
By the letter’s logic, it would therefore be “blood libel” to oppose virtually any Israeli policy, from permanent control of all Palestinians “from the river to the sea” — which is what Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he wants — to what human rights groups have recognized as an apartheid system. To be against virtually any policy that Israel can claim to justify as self-defense would be antisemitic.
If that were not enough, the letter is extraordinary in the sheer extent of its denialism. “Israel is not targeting civilians. It is targeting Hamas,” the authors wrote. Unmentioned, however, is that Israeli forces have killed over 31,000 people, including 13,000 children, decimated every form of civilian infrastructure, brought Gaza to the brink of mass starvation, and displaced over 1.7 million people — to say nothing of the credible reports of journalists and academics being individually targeted.
Of course, these people are Palestinians: a word that the Hollywood letter doesn’t explicitly bar, but that nonetheless goes unmentioned.
Israel’s War on Gaza
The most well-known among the “creatives” are horror film director Eli Roth and actors Debra Messing and Michael Rapaport, who have been outspoken in their support of Israel’s war on Gaza.
More notable are the list of executives and producers who have added their names — unknown to most of us industry outsiders. They included Spyglass Media Group head and former MGM CEO Gary Barber, former Paramount Pictures CEO Sherry Lansing, producer and major television executive Gail Berman, as well as former president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Producers Guild of America Hawk Koch.
Many on the list are screenwriters and showrunners. The agents, producers, and executives denouncing Glazer, however, are engaging in no less than a bullying campaign, leveraging their Jewishness specifically against his, in their numbers, to make baseless and extreme claims.
The Jewish writer Sarah Schulman, commenting on the letter signatories, said that the backlash betrays a “strange childishness — an inability to imagine that they could be part of anything wrong. A total inability to be self-critical.”
It is the Zionist equivalent of what the late Jamaican-British philosopher Charles Mills called “white ignorance” — by which he did not mean things people with white skin do not know. Rather, it is “a cognitive tendency” that functions as an epistemic block, resistant to facts that challenge white supremacy and expose its violence. It leaves the person “aprioristically intent on denying what is before them” — no matter how unassailable the thing is. Mills stressed that “what makes such denial possible, of course, is the management of memory.”
Glazer’s film — about how the family of SS officer and Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss built a domestic idyll at the gates of the concentration camp — depicted this sort of entrenched, ideological, and willful ignorance. The knee-jerk backlash to Glazer’s speech exposes it once again.
The post Even Mentioning “Occupation” at the Oscars Is Antisemitic, Some Jewish Hollywood Figures Say appeared first on The Intercept.
U.S.-Trained Niger Junta Kicks Out U.S. Troops, Drone Base
Col. Maj. Amadou Abdramane, a spokesperson for Niger’s ruling junta, took to the national television network on Saturday to denounce the United States and end the long-standing counterterrorism partnership between the two countries.
“The government of Niger, taking into account the aspirations and interests of its people, revokes, with immediate effect, the agreement concerning the status of United States military personnel and civilian Defense Department employees,” he said, declaring that the security pact, in effect since 2012, violated Niger’s constitution.
The announcement came in the wake of spiking terrorist violence in the West African Sahel and on the heels of a visit to Niger by a high-level U.S. delegation that included top officials from the State and Defense Departments, as well as Gen. Michael Langley, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, or AFRICOM.
“Niger regrets the intention of the American delegation to deny the sovereign Nigerien people the right to choose their partners and types of partnerships truly capable of helping them fight against terrorism,” Abdramane said. “The government of Niger forcefully denounces the condescending attitude accompanied by the threat of retaliation from the head of the American delegation.”
The full-court press by U.S. officials was just the latest clumsy diplomatic effort since a July 2023 coup. Junta leader Gen. Abdourahmane Tiani rebuffed Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in August 2023, and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee, who was also in this month’s high-level delegation, led a failed effort in December to exchange resumed security cooperation for a commitment to a democratic transition.
“We can only hope that this marks the end of this senseless and costly Niger mission.”
“We can only hope that this marks the end of this senseless and costly Niger mission,” said Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy, an advocacy group critical of mainstream Washington foreign policy. “It’s been painful to observe the repeated trips by U.S. officials pitifully hoping to woo or pressure the coup government to allow the mission to continue.”
Asked for comment, AFRICOM spokesperson Kelly Cahalan referred The Intercept to the State Department. The State Department directed The Intercept to the transcript of a press conference dealing almost exclusively with U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Philippines and the Middle East.
Ex-Friends as Coup Leaders
The U.S. has roughly 1,000 military personnel and civilian contractors deployed to Niger, most of them clustered near the town of Agadez, on the southern fringe of the Sahara desert, at Air Base 201. Known locally as “Base Americaine,” the outpost serves as the linchpin of the U.S. military’s archipelago of bases in North and West Africa and a key part of America’s wide-ranging surveillance and security efforts in the region. Since the 2010s, the U.S. has sunk roughly a quarter billion dollars into the outpost. This is in addition to more than $500 million in military assistance provided to Niger since 2012.
After a group of military officers deposed Niger’s democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum last summer, the U.S. spent months avoiding the term “coup” before finally, as mandated by law, suspending approximately $200 million in aid. The U.S. did not, however, withdraw its forces from Niger and continued drone operations.
In the wake of Niger’s March 16 decree ending their status of forces agreement with the United States, both the State Department and Pentagon have done little more than acknowledge it. “[W]e’re seeking further clarification for … what that statement means,” said Defense Department Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh on Monday.
Singh went on to say that the U.S. delegation had “expressed concern over Niger’s potential relationships with Russia and Iran.” Earlier this month, Langley, the AFRICOM chief, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Russia was attempting to “take over” the Sahel. “During the past three years, national defense forces turned their guns against their own elected governments in Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, and Niger,” he said, complaining that due to U.S. aid limitations following coups, these governments “turn to partners who lack restrictions in dealing with coup governments … particularly Russia.”
Langley failed to mention that at least 15 officers who benefited from U.S. security assistance have been involved in 12 coups in West Africa and the greater Sahel during the war on terror, including Burkina Faso (2014, 2015, and twice in 2022); Guinea (2021); Mali (2012, 2020, and 2021); and Niger (2023). At least five leaders of the July 2023 coup in Niger received American assistance, according to a U.S. official. The coup leaders, in turn, appointed five U.S.-trained members of the Nigerien security forces to serve as that country’s governors.
Asked about the situation in Niger on monday, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said security partnerships in West Africa “are mutually beneficial and are intended to achieve what we believe to be shared goals of detecting, deterring, and reducing terrorist violence.”
“The U.S. needs to accept reality that lasting partnerships require fostering genuine development, not just helping to gun down impoverished rural militants.”
While U.S. troop strength in Niger grew by more than 900 percent in the last decade, and U.S. commandos trained local counterparts and fought and even died there, terrorist violence in the African Sahel has been neither deterred nor reduced. During 2002 and 2003, according to the State Department, terrorists caused just 23 casualties in all of Africa. Last year, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research institution, attacks by Islamist militants in the Sahel alone resulted in 11,643 deaths — a more than 50,000 percent increase.
“This security cooperation did not live up to the expectations of Nigeriens – all the massacres committed by the jihadists were carried out while the Americans were here,” said a Nigerien security analyst who has worked with U.S. officials and spoke on the condition of anonymity due to his ties with the Nigerien military. He said that the U.S. needed to negotiate a new agreement with more favorable terms for Niger that was free of the trappings of “paternalism and neocolonialism.”
In the wake of last year’s coup, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a joint resolution requiring President Joe Biden to “remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Niger” within 30 days. The resolution failed in a lopsided 11-86 vote. Now Niger’s ruling junta has seemingly done what Congress failed to.
“The bipartisan minority of Senators who voted last year to bring these troops home had it right,” said Sperling. “The U.S. needs to accept reality that lasting partnerships require fostering genuine development, not just helping to gun down impoverished rural militants who posed no threat to Americans.”
The post U.S.-Trained Niger Junta Kicks Out U.S. Troops, Drone Base appeared first on The Intercept.
Australia’s moment of choice: illegal war on show in 2003 Cabinet papers
What has changed since 2003? Nothing, except for the worse. Australian governments continue to accept the US enemies as their own, and shoot whoever the sheriff says. All but two of the missing Iraq War Cabinet papers have now been released to the long-suffering public. But those of us who remember the Howard government’s secretive, Continue reading »
Global economic and financial review
The American economy is strong, Australia’s economy has slowed to a standstill, and Xi Jinping is proving to be a dry economic rationalist rather than a warm indulgent socialist. Read on for this week’s global economic and financial review. USA, Europe, and Japan American economy is strong, and its inflation is accelerating. Yet its share Continue reading »
The sordid geopolitical saga of TikTok
The US considers TikTok a national security threat. It wants to ban TikTok or transfer its ownership to an American company. In doing so, it is displaying the very behaviour that that it ascribes to China and of which it does not approve. This is clearly reflected in the statement of the US ambassador to Continue reading »
The Vampire Ball is ending for the US Empire
“Empires don’t just fall like toppled trees. Instead, they weaken slowly as a succession of crises drain their strength and confidence until they suddenly begin to disintegrate” – historian Alfred W. McCoy. On March 14, The New York Times published an article by Ivan Nechupurenko entitled “Shunned By West, Russia Pivots South For Trade: Skirting Continue reading »
China’s falling exports to EU, US signals West’s economic decline
We have all no doubt have seen the bad news that China’s exports to the EU have reduced, China’s exports to the US are declining rapidly and, as a result of it, we’re being told by Western media that China is on the verge of collapse. Well, here’s a statement that was released just a Continue reading »