Discussions are ongoing after Niger canceled a military cooperation deal with Washington, spokesperson Pat Ryder has said
Washington has not made any decisions regarding the withdrawal of its forces from Niger, where the military government has terminated a decade-long cooperation deal with the US, Pentagon Press Secretary Pat Ryder said at a briefing on Thursday. Ryder made the comments in response to a question about the future of American troops in the West African nation. “There’s been no decisions made at this stage on the movement of US forces,” Ryder told reporters. Niger’s military authorities, who took power following a July coup, announced on March 16 that they were canceling a 2012 defense cooperation agreement that had allowed about 1,000 US soldiers and civilian contractors to operate in the landlocked country. In a statement on national television in March, government spokesman Amadou Abdramane denounced the US troop presence as “illegal” because “it was not democratically approved and imposes unfavorable conditions on Niger.” The African nation’s military government has also accused a US delegation of attempting to influence Niger’s choice of partners in the fight against terrorism. American officials had earlier been in Niamey to negotiate the renewal of the security pact. The Pentagon has rejected the accusations, with Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh claiming that the US had only expressed concerns about Niger’s growing ties with Russia and Iran. Washington working on way to keep troops in African stateREAD MORE: Washington working on way to keep troops in African state Last week, Celeste Wallander, the Pentagon’s assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, said the US was seeking clarification from Niamey regarding the decision and was working to find a way for American troops to remain in the former French colony. Niger’s Interior Ministry reported on Wednesday that Washington had agreed to submit a proposal for “disengagement” of its troops. This was announced after Interior Minister General Mohamed Toumba met with US Ambassador Kathleen FitzGibbon to discuss the issue, according to a ministry statement. On Thursday, Ryder said “there continues to be ongoing discussions” regarding intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism missions in the Sahel nation.
It was an easily targeted spot for slave traders and gold grabbers who covertly masqueraded as traders. Therefore, it features prominently in the African historical narrative of capital and human exploitation by Europeans. Dr. Judith Spicksley, a historian at the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation (WISE) at the University of Hull, in her seminal article ‘Pawns on the Gold Coast’, describes how early in the trade relationship, Europeans took gold pawns as security for debt. However, as unorthodox rules for slave operations weakened and the lust for more gold overshadowed the emergent supply, Europeans turned increasingly toward the use of human pawns. This is no different from other exploitative processes that led to the loss of precious resources on the continent. Africa’s secret weapon: Extracting this resource will help present the continent’s true potential to the world Read more Africa’s secret weapon: Extracting this resource will help present the continent’s true potential to the world Official evidence of the looting of Ashanti Gold began during the Anglo-Asante War of 1874, when Britain’s military invasion of the Kumasi empire, sitting on the largest gold reserves in the region, inflicted much damage. Armed with explosives and superior firearms, the British military went on a sordid quest for Ashanti’s Gold Royal regalia – like the Mponponsuo sword created 300 years ago by the Kingdom’s Okomfo (spiritual leader) Anokye, which led the list of looted items in 1874. Under the pretext of ending slavery, British military incursions and lopsided trade treaties enforced with superior military might on African leaders occurred. Leaders who resisted were exiled, like the Asantehene Agyeman Prempeh, who was exiled to Seychelles in 1874. The British established trading ports, ensuring Britain declared itself a legitimate ruler on foreign soil. The rulers of several African kingdoms acted as middlemen in these trades, often against their will, but had to consent for self-preservation. The spoils from these conquered kingdoms paid for these wars. In Asante, the Asantahene, ruler of the Ashanti people, signed the harsh Treaty of Fomena in July 1874 to end the war. A standout clause in the treaty between Queen Victoria and Kofi Karikari, King of Ashanti, was the payment of 50,000 ounces (over 1,400kg) of approved gold as indemnity for the expenses caused to the Queen of England by the war. Britain incurred costs from these wars at the expense of its opponents, destroying Africa’s biggest empires. 1874 wasn’t the only instance of looting. In 1896, ceremonial swords, cups, and other vital items measuring a palace’s royalty were stolen. In his 2020 book ‘The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution’, Dan Hicks, a British archaeologist, anthropologist, and professor at the University of Oxford, repudiates the presence of these artifacts in Western museums, which perpetuates a narrative of colonial superiority and cultural dominance while erasing the histories and voices of the communities from which they were stolen.
Although discussions about the restitution of African artifacts predate independence in most African countries, they intensified in the latter half of the 20th century. Archaeologist and Nigeria’s head of the Federal Department of Antiquities, Ekpo Eyo, sent circulars to several European embassies in 1972 about the repatriation of the Benin Bronzes (thousands of 14th- to 16th-century plaques and sculptures taken by the British from the African Kingdom of Benin in the late 19th century) and spurred official pronouncements like the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This convention offers a shared framework among state parties regarding actions required to prohibit and prevent cultural property import, export, and transfer. The convention emphasizes that the return and restitution of these cultural properties are the linchpin of the convention, which mandates safeguarding the identity of peoples and promoting peaceful societies to strengthen the spirit of solidarity and stifle the expansionary rise of black-market trades across the continent. ‘A violation of human rights’: Will the UK government get away with deporting asylum seekers to Africa? Read more ‘A violation of human rights’: Will the UK government get away with deporting asylum seekers to Africa? After 150 years, the Ashanti Gold artifacts are held in various museums around the world, including major museums in Europe and North America. The British Museum in London holds 32 of the 39 historical artifacts, while seven treasures are at the Fowler Museum of the University of California in Los Angeles. Other minor artifacts, which receive little attention, are held in museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Musee du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris, and other smaller regional museums or private collections. In restitution efforts for the Ashanti Gold artifacts, complex legal and logistical hurdles are at play. Firstly, there has to be established provenance through examining documentation, archives, and historical records, owing to the difficulty arising from the long years of history and multiple transfers. Variations in international laws governing the repatriation of cultural property also add to the myriad of challenges. Transporting the artifacts from current holders to their destination and settling associated legal disputes or financial concerns provides further complication. Collaboration among international partners toward this is essential for successfully repatriating these artifacts. In conclusion, this extensive discussion about restitution aims to deepen existing Euro-African diplomatic relationships. The emphasis on restitution primarily lies in its utility as a building block for reconciliation; it aims to rectify pre-colonial injustices, foster international dialogue, and advance the growing bilateral trade between countries on both continents. The Ghana restitution experience will provide the policy framework and lead the roundtable engagement for restitution claims from other countries in Africa. As noted earlier, this action will not only demonstrate contrition but also make the most declarative statement from the West and other collaborators regarding their penitence during this ruinous expedition in colonial Africa.