France has a problem with Chad's president, Idriss Deby.
He is guilty of favoring his clan, the Zaghawa, in the distribution of government and military positions. This has caused not unreasonable resenment from the 97% of Chadians who are not Zaghawa. His commitment to human rights, liberal freedoms and other mainstays of western political beliefs has been lacking. And he has been accused of corruption, embezzlement, and failure to meet World Bank requirements in regard to distribution of profits from the country's budding oil industry.
Why then does France continue to support this man staying in power?
Because France has other interests in Africa that supersede the domestic contentment of the Chadian populace. France maintains around 2,000 troops and an air base in Chad. As the former colonial power, it exerts a certain amount of influence on the government as well as preferential treatment by that government. Most recently, as the largest contributor to the nascent EU Force mission to protect Darfurian refugees in eastern Chad, it would be wholely embarrasing to France for that mission which it had pushed for so earnestly to be compromised by problems in its sphere of influence. Thus, not wanting to lose that power, France has again backed an African ally in his time of need, because Deby is better than the Sudanese backed rebels.
I think this highlights one problem many Western and particularly European states encounter in their dealings with Africa nations. They want to help Africa and its citizens with development aid, to teach/impose their Western values to Africans, and they want under-developed African countries to move into the globalized society that the rest of the world is moving quickly toward. Yet despite these high-minded goals, for most countries, realpolitik is not an absent element in their conduct of foreign policy. In many African nations, the former European colonial powers still wish to exert some measure of control, through economic and financial links, or basing rights etc. As a result, dealing with unsavory leaders and regimes is the price of doing business. As long as this remains the reality on the ground, men like Idriss Deby will continue to rule their countries and in so doing, prevent them from resolving conflict and moving forward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm unclear exactly what France is getting out of Chad. They want to exert control for economic reasons--what are they? Are French companies selling product in Chad?
France gets a number of things out of Chad. On the political side, France continues to want to have an influence over its former colonies as a matter of right, prestige, in order to maintain itself as a pseudo-player in global affairs, and to have a regional role. As an aside, often times, the former colonial power is the only state to get involved, as bad as that might be, largely by default because it is the only country with the requisite national interest. Militarily, as I said in the post, France maintains an army and air base in Chad, to ensure the safety of its nationals and various political and financial interests. Economically, France is Chad's largest trading partner, so while I am not sure of specifically what products are being exchanged, the largest country Chad's products are exchanged with is France. I should note, that oil is not one of them. Chad's oil industry is run by a joint US-Malaysian consortium. Finally, there is a cultural aspect to France's interest beyond that of political client and that is the concept of la Francophonie. Chad's official language is French, it is influenced by French culture, and thus France feels a connection on that level as well.
Before we accuse Idriss Deby of being a leader that doesn't deserve the support of France, we should ask ourselves a few questions.
First, on the fact that he favors people of his clan for governmental positions before others... isn't that true of most players in politics? When a Republican or Democratic president takes the White House, does he/she not fill his staff positions with people from the same party? The French government is set up in such a way so that the French Prime Minister is always of the same party as the majority in Parliament, and acts as a unitary state, where all three branches of government act as a single unit. And another question we must ask ourselves: in countries such as Chad where people of different political parties (I use the term lightly) murder each other for that very reason, is it really feasible for a president to allow more political figures from opposing parties into the government than he is already?
In regards to accusations regarding human rights violations, suppression of political freedoms, and corruption- while I am not familiar with specific violations regarding Idriss Deby, I do know that one would be hard pressed to find an African leader in power that is not accused of one if not all of these things. To what degree does he really do these things? We also need to be taking a hard look at realities on the ground. It might not be possible for a Chadian president to come to power if he did not in some way exploit what most Western countries would call unforgivable abuses of power.
The real question with which we should concern ourselves is where his true intentions lie. Does he wish to use the government ultimately to suppress the rest of the Chadian population for the benefit of the Zaghawa? Or in the future, when he has a better ability to do so, does he intend use his influence to support more Western and Democratic values? The answer lies probably not in big, over sweeping statements that people have made about him and his hold of power, but probably in smaller actions which show his true nature and, for our part, deserve closer scrutiny.
Finally, to add one more element into the discussion before I end my very long comment, who or what would be the alternative to Idriss Deby if France did not support him? I think that one lesson the world can learn from America’s intervention in Iraq is that using political and/or military action to remove an anti-western leader such as Saddam Hussein, or maybe in this case Idriss Deby, does not necessarily make the state a better place. France may very well have chosen, consciously, only to support the lesser of two evils.
Hey Arthur,
Thanks for responding, hope all is well in Japan.
I will respond to your post point by point. While the leaders of government generally have the right to appoint whomever they want to positions of power, an attempt is generally made to take individuals from different ideological and ethnic constituencies. So, for example, the US cabinet is not 15 white Christian republican men, the demographic which largely makes up the Republican party; instead it includes 4 women, one of whom is Asian and another black, 2 Jews, a black man, a Hispanic man and a democrat.
That being said, however, I reject your comparison to both the US and French systems because those governments are answerable to an democratic electorate which put them in office in the first place and in the case of the US, the cabinet secretaries are subject to confirmation by the Congress. Deby is a strongman who took power in a coup 18 years ago.
As for the feasibility of having members of the opposition party in the government, a look at what has happened in Kenya where the Kikuyu were controlling the government shows that single ethnicity governments are a recipe for civil strife. That being said, I merely raised the point to show that it is cause for opposition, whether or not there is a remedial policy is secondary.
As for your second point, while I am not excusing President Deby of violation of human rights, I also have a more realpolitik attitude that these types of things will occur and that Western governments, while not condoning the practice must take it as part of doing business in the region. Again, as above, I am not criticizing Deby only, merely pointing out why there is internal opposition and rebellion against him.
As for his true intentions, I think he probably is looking out for his own clan and the rest of the country is a secondary concern. Like most strongmen, his first and foremost concern is to stay in power through gaining internal control and foreign backing. Given that he has been in power for 18 years he is obviously successful at doing so and thinks he has enough of a base to snub his nose at the World Bank for example. Oil revenues over time will merely make him stronger. As for democracy coming to Chad, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with your last point. Chad is not a wonderful Western country where freedom and liberty and human rights are prized among other things and all the people in the country get along. Life in Chad is hard and finding competent leadership is probably even harder. I think France is right to support Deby for stability above all else. As you pointed out, chaos is never good, and the evil you know is better than one you don't. I believe Chad, France, and the north-central African region is much better off with Deby in power with France's blessing than a coalition of disaffected Chadians ruling as puppets of the Sudanese. That would not be good for anyone especially the people of Darfur.
I just want to reiterate that the post about Deby was not necessarily meant to be critical of France for supporting him. I understand why France does, and I think they are doing the right thing by doing so. The world is a bad place and in some places it is just not practical to expect democratic values to flourish. Chad, for the foreseeable is one of those places.
Post a Comment