France's strongman strategy in the Sahel


The French response to internal threats in North African countries has been to reinforce authoritarian rule to keep the peace. But it could inflame miltancy in the long run, especially in Chad and Libya.

Last month, French planes struck rebel convoys that were making for the Chadian capital, N’Djamena, in an intervention lasting several days. The convoys had entered Chad from bases in Libya and belonged to the Union des Forces de la Résistance (UFR), a group that has sought to overthrow Chad’s president, Idriss Déby Itno, ever since its formation in 2009. Their leader in the mission? None other than Déby’s nephew, Timame Erdimi.

This is not the first time France has come to the aid of Déby, let alone an autocratic Chadian leader; the intervention showed the lengths to which France is willing to go to protect its regional partners. Set in the wider context of instability in the Sahel and north Africa, however, the intervention shows how European countries continue to favour short-term solutions to security and migration in the region. France has had a military cooperation agreement with Chad since 1976. Yet this type of approach continues to put long-term stability at risk.

These latest airstrikes mark the first direct French military intervention in Chad since 2008. Eleven years earlier, a fragmentary but large coalition of rebel groups, which including Erdimi’s, had advanced on the capital, even bombarding the presidential palace. At the time, France had 1,500 troops in the country as part of its Operation Épervier, and it provided intelligence, logistics, and possibly even more direct action, as part of the Chadian effort to repel the rebels.

France is now highly dependent on auxiliaries and partners – be they national leaders or armed groups that patrol the borders of Mali and Niger

The internal and regional context is now very different. Since 2013, Chad has remade itself into a key regional counter-terrorism partner. During France’s Operation Serval, for instance, Chadian forces intervened to help retake northern Mali from jihadist groups. Chadian troops still make up a majority of forces in the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali, suffering in January the deadliest attack ever on the UN mission there. Elsewhere, Chad has contributed troops to the fight against Boko Haram in the Lake Chad basin, while N’Djamena hosts the headquarters of Operation Serval’s successor, Operation Barkhane. The G5 Sahel Joint Force, which is a key focal point for French planning and activities in the Sahel, will likely draw to some extent on Chadian troops.

Chad’s importance to these regional operations has allowed it to make demands of France and the European Union, much as other regional countries – particularly Niger – have extracted enormous concessions from Europe due to their cooperation on reducing migration, as well as on counter-terrorism. This has led to speculation that Chad may have requested the airstrike not out of pure need, but instead to show the world the strength of its relationship with France – to prove that France would respond with force when Déby faces a threat.

While this may look like Françafrique redux in which France controls or exerts undue influence on its African partners, the situation is in many ways more complicated than this. France is now highly dependent on auxiliaries and partners – be they national leaders or armed groups that patrol the borders of Mali and Niger. Such partnerships can have dangerous consequences, as can be seen when these auxiliaries commit human rights abuses or pursue policies that may threaten broader French stabilisation goals.

Indeed, some of the instability in the region may partly result from these interventions and partnerships. In Libya, Elysée support for Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar has extended long beyond the self-declared Libyan National Army’s (LNA) "war on terror" in Benghazi – an undertaking that began in 2014 and first attracted France to cooperate with the would-be strongman. Such battlefield assistance and diplomatic support have been an essential component of Haftar’s rise in the last five years. And France appears to have maintained this support unconditionally, despite: allegations of war crimes; an increasingly prominent Salafist core in the LNA, which has the International Criminal Court has indicted; attempts to sell oil in breach of UN Security Council resolutions; and Haftar’s part in prolonging Libya’s conflict and undermining the UN-sponsored political process that France publicly backs.

Haftar’s latest offensive has seen him move into southern Libya, thereby bringing rival militias together in opposition to him, and potentially pushing others, such as the UFR, further south for a time. Haftar’s public explanations for his southern Libya operations have centred on seeking to expel Chadian, or African, militias from Libyan soil. Haftar’s choice of narrative suggests coordination with France and Déby, making this a regional operation as much as a Libyan one. But such language has isolated and provoked Libya’s sizeable Tebu population, which has long been subject to marginalisation and discrimination by widespread Libyan claims that they are Chadian or Nigerien rather than Libyan. The Tebu are a cross-border, diverse set of clans that span Libya, Niger, and Chad. Despite their lack of strict organisation, the Tebu remain perhaps the largest group in southern Libya. Provoked to mobilise against Haftar, they could help trigger unrest on a regional scale. Thus, French support for Haftar could yet have severe knock-on effects.

The situation becomes yet more complex when one examines the make-up of the LNA. Despite its characterisation as an army, it is more akin to a franchise operation. Most of its forces are tribal, local, or Salafist militias that receive resources and a veneer of legitimacy in exchange for some semblance of loyalty. This means that Haftar’s expansion to the south has forced him to take sides in a heavily tribal part of the country. He has patronised mainly Arab tribes and deployed Sudanese militias from the opposition Minni Minawi movement – which have a stake in the Chadian conflict. He has attempted to isolate, intimidate, or simply buy off locals who are not among his clients.

This has allowed Haftar to spread his influence quickly and seize vital infrastructure. But the risk of escalation hangs over the region. The heavy-handed actions of his forces could trigger a messy and intractable conflict, as could a halt in the flow of cash and supplies he uses to purchase local goodwill. Indeed, these forces have already been accused of a litany of crimes against those who do not support them.

Haftar’s advance into southern Libya coincides with shifts such as a decline in the Sahel’s migration economy (caused by restrictive migration policies) and rising interest in the region from foreign powers, some of whom could provide support to armed groups. Having disrupted Tebu militias that circulate between southern Libya, Chad, and Niger, these shifts may have been a factor in a recent attack that killed the military commander of Dirkou, a strategically important Nigerien region near the borders of Libya and Chad.

Each country in the region is facing a different kind of internal threat: worsening jihadist violence in Mali and Burkina Faso; a potential increase in militancy and trafficking in northern Niger; various rebellions in northern Chad; and now a return to violence in southern Libya. If the European – particularly French – response in each case is to merely reinforce authoritarian rule, it could inflame such militancy in the long run.

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. This commentary, like all publications of the European Council on Foreign Relations, represents only the views of its authors.

Read more on: The Middle East and North Africa,North Africa,Libya

ECFR Podcasts

Our experts and eminent guests talk about Europe's role in the world. Subscribe on iTunes or Soundcloud.

    • 1.9K plays1.9K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Crimea at five
    • 2.5K plays2.5K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Protests in Algeria: A fifth term for Bouteflika?
    • 2.9K plays2.9K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Why did Iran's foreign minister resign?
    • 3.2K plays3.2K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Highlights of the Munich Security Conference 2019
    • 3.1K plays3.1K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - EU Elections: Could anti-Europe parties wreck the EU from within?
    • 2.9K plays2.9K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - The crisis in Venezuela: What does Europe’s move mean?
    • 2.8K plays2.8K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - US tariffs on Chinese exports: Can the two reach a deal?
    • 3.6K plays3.6K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - The Aachen Treaty: A closer Franco-German relationship?
    • 3.4K plays3.4K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - The US role in Syria
    • 3.5K plays3.5K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Trends for 2019
    • 3.9K plays3.9K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - The Global Compact on Migration: The clash between populism and technocracy
    • 3.9K plays3.9K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - How has Germany’s strategy shifted?
    • 3.7K plays3.7K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - The Sea of Azov: The newest front in the war in Ukraine?
    • 2.7K plays2.7K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Could EU entry bans protect human rights?
    • 3.2K plays3.2K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Brexit: This deal or no deal?
    • 2.9K plays2.9K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Midterm elections: Will US foreign policy change?
    • 3.2K plays3.2K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - A world without Angela Merkel
    • 3.1K plays3.1K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - Close contact? Coalition building in the EU
    • 3.3K plays3.3K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - The disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi
    • 3K plays3K
    Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes - The Sahel: A transit region for migration

Join the discussion…


  • There's a problem with defining French strategy as shortsighted, namely that in something as complex as stabilizing regions from insurgencies and/or rebuilding them after prolonged conflicts, sometimes you work with what you have and not with what you wish you had. In this case, a larger problem would be not propping up local strongmen, but lacking any sort of vision for the region's future beyond military success. Is Paris trying to reconcile rebel groups with the mainstream of their respective country's societies? Or are they content to just fight it out until they "win", with winning defined as whatever happens to happen?

    I am unaware of what French diplomatic efforts might be or to what extent Europe and/or the UN have a hand in things. If the latter two are involved, I suspect a great many of the operation's long term problems are rooted in the EU's and UN's almost willing inability to do anything other than prolong conflicts either through malicious action or rancid inaction.

    But to get back to French actions and inactions in the Sahel, France and the West have a real problem and that is looking like an imperialist. If France chose to treat the locals like colonial troops and task them with fetching water and stowing the luggage or taking charge and essentially usurping local officers for French ones, one has to ask if the locals would embrace or resent that arrangement. Foreign troops with French officers works well with the Foreign Legion, but the Legion is composed of volunteers who went to France of their own volition. They did not have France come to them and tell them how things were going to play out.

    And so Paris is forced, both by current realities and diplomatic fashion, to give the locals a say in determining their own fate. Does this always jibe with what France wants or what the UN wants? No. But as the ongoing Brexit debacle and Donald Trump's election show, people do not always take kindly to transnational bodies telling them what to do and how to do it. Trump's election was helped a lot by this sort of xenophobic nationalist resentment and it would be unwise to assume that just because the locale changes from America to Africa that somehow the latter is more open to adopting a servile role to outsiders.

    If the solution is to simply have more boots on the ground, and more trustworthy ones at that, the simplest and most logical solution would be to expand the French Foreign Legion and have it transform its previous role as a colonial occupation force into a post-colonial gendarmerie with an ability to take on serious military opposition. Europe and adjoining regions are full of young men willing to fight and so rather than have them join some militia or regional strongman, let them join the Legion and serve French and by default European interests with a degree of professionalism and ability that one simply does not find in local proxies. And as many outside Europe are clamoring to get there anyway, let them earn the right through service rather than as refugees.

    And then combine that with a clearer and more encompassing vision for the region that goes beyond maintaining the post-colonial status quo. Africa's current borders were drawn largely from colonial maps, all of which were designed to separate ethnic groups and tribes in a divide-and-conquer strategy that all but ensured a dysfunctional post-colonial existence. France and the West need to realize that ethnicity and tribal allegiance still play an important part in everyday life in many places around the world and that the division of these groups is the main source of friction among countries that were at one time European colonies.

    The US had the Marshall Plan and China has the BRI. Europe needs a similar plan to stabilize Africa because anything else will only be sustainable at the point of a gun.

    And as much as I admire the French Foreign Legion, even I have to admit that it ultimately failed in its duty to preserve the French Empire because ultimately it represented only one leg of the triad of military-politics-economics that it takes to win a war or conflict.

      see more

      Also on ECFR