Security concerns rise as U.S. troops leave Chad and Niger

JOHN YANG: The African nations of Niger and Chad have both been key partners with the United States in combating terrorist groups in the region.

But as Ali Rogin tells us, that cooperation is in question now that both countries are ruled by military regimes.

ALI ROGIN: The American presence in Niger and Chad gave us troops eyes in the sky and boots on the ground in the region known as the Sahel.

Stronghold for Islamist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda.

The Sahel accounts for nearly half of all terrorism deaths worldwide.

Niger has been hosting nearly 1,000 American military personnel and an airbase from which the U.S. launched drone operations and special operations forces had also been stationed in Chad's capital.

And U.S. soldiers have trained local armed forces in both countries.

But the majority of forces in Niger are now on their way out.

Those in Chad will follow suit while talks continue to possibly keep troops in the country.

As U.S. forces withdraw, us adversaries are looking to fill the void.

Russia has sent military instructors to Niger, and Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted Chad's junta leader in Moscow this year.

Jay Peter Pham is former us ambassador and special envoy for the Sahel region and a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council.

Peter, thank you so much for being here.

J. PETER PHAM, Former U.S. Special Envoy for the Sahel Region: Pleasure to be with you, Ali.

ALI ROGIN: how significant are these departures?

J. PETER PHAM: Well, in particular, the departure and the loss of the two air bases, one in Agadez and one in Niame in Niger, are significant.

It took a decade to build these facilities up, to train local forces with which we operated, and to carry out operations, not just in Niger and not just in the Sahel, but actually, these bases were useful for operations, really, across a wide part of Africa.

So, it's going to be a significant loss, a setback.

There's no sugar coating in time.

Substitute facilities may be found, but it's going to take time to build up the capacity and the partnerships that are being lost.

ALI ROGIN: Could this have been avoided?

What could the U.S. have done differently?

J. PETER PHAM: I think we could have been more attuned to the fact that winds of change were sweeping across Africa.

Political elites are widely discredited in many of these Sahelian countries.

Just because there's an extra constitutional overthrow of a government doesn't mean that what came before was necessarily a Jeffersonian democracy.

And also, quite frankly, our French friends and allies, their old partners, but they've got a lot of baggage in this region, and they were the first kick out.

There's widespread unrest about them and there's been some tainting by association.

So, we could have been, probably managed the situation much better in terms of being attuned to what was happening, the dynamics, and also engagement with the regimes that have emerged.

ALI ROGIN: And, of course, what was happening are eight military coups in west and Central Africa since 2020.

Why have they swept the region like they have?

J. PETER PHAM: I think part of it was with what came before, there were elections, but they weren't necessarily legitimate elections.

And even where they were democratic elections, these were young democracies where governments were failing.

When I was special envoy, I kept repeating that the region had a crisis of state legitimacy, that governments were not providing basic goods, services and protection to their people.

And so what people want is protection, security.

And I'm not saying military guys are the solution, but they present an easy, credible solution compared with some of the civilian leaderships that came before.

ALI ROGIN: What does it say about these junta leaders that they've all been shunning leaders from the west, the United States, also many colonial powers, including France?

J. PETER PHAM: Well, I think the one big mistake we make is to try to make them, force them to choose us or the other guy.

And I'm not by any stretch of the -- anyone who knows me knows I carry very little water or any for our Chinese or Russian friends, but they're offering facile solutions.

And when we tell them, us or them very often, because they can deliver quickly and immediately, that becomes the easy one for the juntas or other leaders to opt for, we have to figure a way to maintain our conversations, maintain our strategic objectives, while at the same time not betraying our values.

And it's a tough balancing act.

ALI ROGIN: Niger, this decision does seem final.

The troops are leaving.

But in Chad, though, is there a little more wiggle room there?

There are talks going on.

Could these troops actually come back to the region?

J. PETER PHAM: Well, I think the Chadians raise in their note a legitimate question.

What are our forces doing in Chad?

It's been several years since we've had direct military to military training assistance of the normal kind that one has troops stationed these countries for.

And part of it has to do with the nature of the regime and Chad events that have occurred.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for, but at the same time they have a question asked.

They're also going through an election period right now, which is a period of a little bit of turbulence.

I think once they get through that, I think there's some serious frank conversations that have to be had and we'll see what comes out of it.

Hopefully, we don't get pushed out of yet another country in the region and especially a country like Chad, which, of course is really at the fulcrum of not just the Sahel but also Libya to its north, Sudan to its east.

But it's been several years since Congress and the administration have given military assistance or training to the Chadians.

Now, part of that is due to the nature of regime transition in that country.

But at the same time, the Chadians have a right to ask, well, if you're not here to train us, what are you here to do?

And the answer to that, of course, is, as we all know, also help our French partners in some of their counterterrorism operations.

But raises a legitimate question from the Chadian point of view, and again, we end up associated with a former colonial power that has baggage in the region.

ALI ROGIN: In terms of the countries filling the vacuum, we saw that Russia has already made its way into Niger.

What are the possible consequences of countries like Russia and China filling the void that we're leaving?

J. PETER PHAM: In the short term, they provide what some of these new regimes, military regimes, think is a security blanket because they're interested in regime survival.

Now, whether what they provide is actually useful to that end, that's a different question.

But in the long term, are they capable of providing the military assistance, the training which was very effective in Niger that the U.S. and our European friends have provided?

Are they capable of providing the economic and development assistance that the U.S. and our European friends have provided for the decades?

And the answer seems to be no.

In the short term, the juntas may benefit.

In the long term, it's the people of Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, of Chad, countries in the Sahel who ultimately may pay the price for short term decisions.

ALI ROGIN: J. Peter Pham, former U.S. ambassador and special envoy for the Sahel region and now a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council, thank you so much.

J. PETER PHAM: Thank you for having me, Ali.