US withdrawal from Niger demonstrates America’s coup confusion
Last week, the United States agreed to withdraw around a thousand troops from the West African nation of Niger, where they had been supporting a regional fight against jihadist insurgents. This withdrawal wasn’t the result of domestic pressure, but instead the culmination of rising tensions with the Nigerien military government that seized power last year. The withdrawal also coincides with the arrival of Russian military advisers.
These two developments are a black eye for American foreign policy, especially considering how hard the Biden administration attempted to avert this outcome. Niger has taught the U.S. an unfortunate lesson about appeasing coup plotters — but one that can be instructive.
With coups on the rise, it is long past time that the U.S. reconsider its approach toward this growing problem. If it does not, American leaders are only inviting both uncertainty about our credibility as a democratic leader and the opportunity for autocrats to take advantage of a confused policy.
On July 26, 2023, Niger suffered its latest episode in an unfortunate history of military coups. The military plotters — led, ironically, by the head of the presidential guard, Gen. Abdourahamane Tchiani — announced that a military junta would exercise both executive and legislative power.
This development placed the United States in a tough strategic position. As part of the coalition fighting jihadists across the Sahel, Niger has played host to members of the American military. A $110 million military installation, Air Base 201, managed U.S. drone activity for the region. But the sudden coup put that relationship in immediate jeopardy.
Foreign assistance is largely allocated by Congress each year as part of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. Tucked within is Section 7008, a decades-old clause stipulating that foreign governments deposed by military coups will be ineligible for large portions of American assistance. For the clause to activate, it requires confirmation from the executive branch that a coup has taken place. Quite literally, the presidential administration must call a coup a “coup” for funding to be suspended.
Many observers, including myself on this site, concluded within days that a coup had taken place in Niger. However, the Biden administration appeared hesitant to make this declaration. This wait-and-see tactic was not new, as the Obama administration had taken a similar approach (to much late night comedy derision) following the 2013 coup in Egypt. Rather than confronting coups head on, American administrations have prioritized gambling that their strategic place in these countries can be negotiated with the new military dictators.
Rather than calling a coup a coup, the administration took a position of avoidance. American representatives were deployed to Niger, which only heightened tensions through a confused strategy. Their “rudderless” efforts continued into 2024, even after the U.S. finally invoked Section 7008 three months after the fact. By that point, the Nigerien junta had entrenched itself and (like their fellow putschists in neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali) invited opportunities for new partnerships with Moscow to substitute for the U.S.
The downturn in U.S.-Niger relations was rapid. In March, Niger’s spokesman read a decree suspending military cooperation. Less than a month later, paramilitary advisors and equipment from Russia’s Africa Corps landed in Niger. Civilian protests within days of Russia’s arrival began to demand the immediate removal of American forces from the country. Finally, last week, the U.S. agreed to withdraw its troop presence, leaving the status of its remaining bases in question.
This policy setback suggests that it is beyond time for the U.S. to reconsider its approach toward coups globally. First, coups are unconstitutional and usually anti-democratic. As a self-proclaimed leader in the fight for global democracy, America has a moral imperative to take a proactive role in leading the international charge against these bad actors. Second, as I have noted previously, Congress holds the power of the purse in this situation and should wield it accordingly.
One option for Congress would be to revise Section 7008 to set a timeline for the State Department to make a coup determination. A formal request could initiate the process and set this timeline in motion. In the interim, Congress could hold hearings and build public consensus about the facts on the ground. This would set conditions for oversight, ensure there aren’t unnecessary delays and allow the U.S. to put early pressure on coup actors.
Another option would be for Congress to introduce a statutory definition of a coup in legislation. Having this in writing would prevent administrations from avoiding sanctions triggers by hedging with terms like “uprising.”
If administrations are slow or unwilling to make determinations, Congress should give itself a stronger oversight role in the review process. By simply revising extant appropriations legislation, the United States can rejuvenate its policy of protecting partner democracies and confronting anti-democratic behaviors when they emerge.
Austin S. Matthews is an assistant professor of political science at East Carolina University. His research focuses on authoritarian regimes and the dynamics of regime change.