The United States calls for Niger's "speedy return to democracy and the rule of law." Tensions arose in Niger as as President Mamadou Tandja, who has been in office since December 1999, has been trying to stay in power beyond the time mandated by the constitution. The new constitution is already in the works in order to come to a quick resolution to the conflict.
Tandja is stated to currently be in a military camp. Soldiers stormed the presidential palace and opened intermittent gunfire. Later that day, the constitution was suspended and order was given to the Superior Council for the Restoration of Democracy. According to the United Nations, the onset violence could have been prompted by a collapse of talks between the government and the opposition over a recent referendum allowing the president to hold power indefinitely. Niger's former constitution allowed only two, five-year terms for president.
The general West African public favored the actions of the military coup. Many rallied in support, while civilians are returning to their normal lives, restoring peace in Niger.
I find that this article reflects our discussions of realism versus liberalism as well as Obama's speech regarding the Nobel Peace Prize. The military coup of Niger dealt with the issue in a realist manner. Subsequently, the United Nations got involved, bringing a liberal aspect to the situation. The citizens of Niger felt that if they wanted results, they'd have to take matters into their own hands, which lead to the involvement of a global organization. This portrays Obama's thoughts as well, showing that violent actions are, at times, necessary to attain peace and order. It is foolish to create a false Utopian society with reality knocking on your door. This is where both realism and liberalism co-exist.
Liberal theory argues that countries wars are not fought because of the ways in which countries perceive each other. Thus two countries who are democratic will not go to war with each other simply because of the fact that they are both democracies and therefore share similar ideas. In this article what is interesting is the way in which the United States views Niger, while it is highly unlikely that the United States will enter any sort of conflict with Niger it may be less likely to assist the country with means of development or other similar things. In addition the way in which the parties were unable to reach a peaceful agreement further exemplifies the way in which Niger ought to not be considered an enlightened state, as states which are "enlightened" share certain characteristics such as the development of democratic elections.
ReplyDelete