Last month, France’s state-owned nuclear company Orano revealed that Niger’s military government had taken “operational control” of its uranium mining subsidiary, Sumer, in Niger. In a statement dated December 4, it claimed that decisions taken at board meetings at Sumer – in which the state of Niger has a 36.6 percent stake – “are no longer implemented.” More importantly, she said Nigerian authorities refuse to suspend production at the mine, while also not allowing the export of products, claiming it “places a heavy burden on employees and local communities.”

Orano says she first began experiencing difficulties running Somare in July 2023, shortly after a group of high-ranking army officers, led by General Abderrahmane Chiane, ousted Nigerian President Mohamed Bazoum.

In response to the coup, the ECOWAS regional bloc suspended Niger’s membership and imposed sanctions on the country. These included trade sanctions that halted all exports through Benin, including Somare uranium exports.

The Economic Community of West African States lifted these trade restrictions in February 2024, but the Nigerien authorities decided to keep its borders with Benin closed. They also refused to resume exports of uranium produced by Sumire through an alternative route, effectively ending the Urano branch’s chances of commercial survival.

The military government dealt another blow to Orano’s interests in Niger in June by revoking the permit obtained by its other subsidiary, Imorarin SA, to explore the uranium deposit at Imorarin – believed to be one of the largest uranium deposits in the world – on the grounds that The French company’s development plans did not meet expectations.

The apparent hostility of the Nigerian junta towards the French nuclear giant is not without reason.

Since first taking power, Niger’s military rulers have expressed dissatisfaction with the process by which foreign companies are able to secure lucrative mining licences, saying the landlocked African nation’s 27 million citizens should reap greater profits from its rich uranium deposits.

Their argument is justified.

For all its natural resources, Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world, with nearly half of its population living in extreme poverty and about 13.1 percent facing acute food insecurity. Despite helping to keep the lights on in Europe through the uranium found on their lands, only one in seven Nigerians have access to modern electricity services. The West African country ranked 189th out of 193 countries in the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index. index For the period 2023-24.

It is clear that the average Nigerian has gained almost nothing from the country’s enviable abundant natural resources over the years. Much of this profound injustice can be blamed on the actions of France, Niger’s former colonial power.

Niger declared its independence from France in 1960, but was never able to put an end to French exploitation of its uranium deposits. Taking advantage of trade agreements dating back to the pre-independence era, France has been extracting uranium in Niger at the highest possible profit margins, providing the Nigerian people with nothing but scraps, for more than five decades. Sometimes, according to Nigerian officials, French companies do not even pay what they formally agreed for exports.

For example, Mahamane Lawan Gaya, Nigeria’s former energy minister and secretary-general of the African Petroleum Producers Organization (APPO) until 2020, told German newspaper DW in a 2023 interview that Niger exported uranium worth €3.5 billion ($3.6 billion) to Nigeria. France in 2010, but received only 459 million euros ($480 million) in return.

It now appears, at least on the surface, that the military government is rightly trying to put an end to this unequal and exploitative trade relationship built on French colonial privilege. However, when you dig a little deeper, it becomes clear that the military government’s actions are not based solely on a desire to advance the Nigerian national interest. It appears that the unelected administration’s primary goal in targeting Orano is not to protect the nation from colonial exploitation, but rather to pressure France to recognize its rule.

This was admitted by the Nigerian Minister of Mines, Colonel Abarshi Usman, in a recent interview with RIA Novosti news agency.

“The French state, through its president, has announced that it does not recognize the current authorities in Niger,” he told Russian outlets in November. “Does it seem to you that we, the State of Niger, will allow French companies to continue extracting our natural resources?”

It is clear from this statement that the military government may be willing to allow Orano to continue extracting Niger’s resources, but on the condition that the French government gives it legitimacy on the international stage (and perhaps a slightly better share of the profits).

Unfortunately, the military government seems to be doing the right thing, at least for the time being, but for the wrong reasons.

Nigerians have an inherent right to control their national resources. However, this fundamental right should not be abused to ensure the political well-being and long-term survival of an increasingly repressive coup regime closely allied with Russia – another self-serving imperialist power, no doubt, waiting its turn to exploit uranium in Niger. Reserves and other resources.

The resource nationalism that the military government seems to be promoting could help Niger greatly, and bring its people the prosperity and stability they deserve. But only if the country’s rulers refrain from replacing the exploitation practiced by former colonialists with internal corruption and violent repression.

Indeed, the appropriation of indigenization efforts and rhetoric by a seemingly patriotic and anti-colonial leadership to advance its own self-serving agenda is not without precedent in Africa. Every time a government or leader turns localization in general – and resource nationalization in particular – into a tool to consolidate power to oppress people, the end result has been economic, political and social devastation.

Take Libya, Niger’s oil-rich neighbor – perhaps the country that has had the most success with localization on the continent.

Two years after coming to power in a bloodless coup in September 1969, then-Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi sought to renegotiate the price of oil to finance a social and economic revolution.

After intense negotiations, Libya signed a groundbreaking agreement with Western oil companies in March 1971. The deal raised the declared price of Libyan oil from $2.55 per barrel to $3.45, increasing Libya’s annual revenues by more than $600 million (equivalent to approximately $4.6 billion). ). today).

Two years later, in September 1973, Libya nationalized 51% of the assets of all oil companies operating in the country. As a result of these windfalls, the North African country’s per capita income soared, rising from $1,830 in 1970 to more than $4,000 in 1975 and becoming one of the highest in the world by 1979.

With the significant financial resources he gained from resource nationalization and localization, Gaddafi succeeded in launching a new era of quasi-socialist social and economic progress that facilitated the construction of new housing, educational institutions, and health care facilities. For a while, the revolution made extraordinary gains. Libyans have seen tremendous improvements in living standards, literacy rates, and life expectancy.

However, the good times did not last – in part because Gaddafi moved to position himself and his regime as the new oppressors of the nation he had liberated from Western exploitation.

Along with commissioning shiny new developments, Gaddafi unleashed a wave of repression – censorship, enforced disappearances, widespread detentions, show trials, televised public executions, and widespread detentions. Massacres – It targeted university students and intellectuals, Religious MuslimsOpposition groups and political rivals.

Gaddafi’s willingness to trample basic civil liberties and human rights to silence any critical voice and cling to absolute power quickly transformed him from a national hero into a fearsome villain. the Anti-government protests Internal conflict caused by widespread state violence, combined with pressure from Western powers alarmed by the loss of cheap access to the country’s resources, led to the demise of his regime in 2011, and the outbreak of a second civil war in Libya.

In an instant, Gaddafi – and Libya – were victorious. The country regained control of its wealth. The future was bright. But he blew it.

Another noteworthy example of African nationalization efforts ending in chaos and suffering due to the “nationalist” and “anti-colonial” leadership’s thirst for absolute power and personal enrichment occurred in Zimbabwe.

In 2000, under the leadership of former President Robert Mugabe, the ruling party ZANU-PF launched a rapid land reclamation program aimed at addressing the injustices caused by land confiscation during British colonial rule. About 170,000 black Zimbabwean families were resettled, each receiving 6 hectares (15 acres) of prime farmland previously owned by about 4,000 white commercial farmers.

However, ZANU-PF implemented a very chaotic, violent and highly politicized land reform process. Supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change party – both real and suspected – were targeted. Mugabe used all state resources not to return to the people of Zimbabwe what the colonialists had stolen from them – as he promised – but to silence opposition to his regime. Ultimately, the violent methods used to implement land reform and force Zimbabweans to keep voting for it eroded national cohesion, provoked sanctions by Western countries, and resulted in a catastrophic economic contraction.

Today, seven years after the end of his rule, Zimbabwe has yet to recover from Mugabe’s urgent and highly justified, but poorly and unfairly implemented, land redistribution push.

Since 1960, that pivotal year in which 17 African countries achieved independence, indigenization and resource nationalization have always been in vogue in Africa. Today, from Senegal to Ghana, many African leaders still say they are working to help Africans reclaim what is rightfully theirs, and to promote local ownership of oil, gas and mining projects in their countries.

Resource nationalism can provide African countries with the boost they need, and ultimately help them achieve true independence and long-term prosperity. But as events in Libya and Zimbabwe have demonstrated, efforts to nationalize resources, under the guidance of selfish leaders more concerned with their own political future than with the well-being of the nation, can be disastrous.

Niger is now going through a critical stage. If its military government chose to pursue a policy of true resource nationalism, kept its many promises to the nation, and created a new system that would allow every penny earned from extracting and exporting uranium to return to the people, the country could truly prosper. If nationalization comes hand in hand with democratic transformation and people power, Niger will finally be able to shake the last vestiges of colonial control off their shoulders and become – as happened briefly with Libya – an engine of progress in Africa.

Unfortunately, the military government appears to be choosing another path, one that may help it politically in the short term, but will undoubtedly harm the country in the long term.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.