(SenePlus) – In an analysis that challenges preconceived ideas, Raphaël Chauvancy, senior officer of the Marine Troops and expert at the School of Economic Warfare, reveals how the French military withdrawal from Africa, far from being a defeat, could mark the beginning of a new strategic era for Paris.
The story begins with a historical misunderstanding. Unlike the British who had a clearly defined colonial project – to enrich themselves – France embarked on the African adventure “a little by chance”, according to Chauvancy, by simple mimicry with London. To justify this “useless empire”, Paris then invented a civilizing mission, based on the “proselytism of values” and cultural influence.
This fundamental difference explains why, once decolonization was completed, France remained a prisoner of its African military bases, transformed into a “Potemkin village of French power”. These establishments, costly but prestigious, maintained the illusion of global influence while nourishing what the analyst calls “the pink stain complex”, in reference to the color of the empire on colonial maps.
The current military withdrawal movement is part of a deeper dynamic than the simple rise of anti-French sentiment. Chauvancy draws a striking parallel between contemporary African and European aspirations: “Permanent foreign military establishments are now perceived in Africa in the same way as unwanted immigration in Europe. As an attack on sovereignty, on national dignity.”
This change in mentalities makes the old relationship model obsolete. The case of Senegal is emblematic: “That Senegalese democracy feels sufficiently strong and self-confident to now do without a foreign military presence is healthy. Was this not the goal pursued by bilateral cooperation?”
A major strategic repositioning
The French military withdrawal frees up valuable resources at a crucial time. Chauvancy identifies several strategic priorities that require Paris’s attention: the Russian threat on Europe’s eastern borders, the turbulence in the Gulf, the protection of overseas territories and the maintenance of rapid intervention capabilities.
The Russian presence in Africa, perceived as a threat, is according to the analyst nothing more than a “strategic Ponzi pyramid” which will collapse by itself once “deprived of the French bogeyman”. Moscow’s African partners will soon discover “the extent to which they have been exploited” in the face of “anecdotal development aid” and “untenable promises”.
France has other assets to maintain its influence: “the leading investor in sub-Saharan Africa after China”, it can rely on its dynamic cultural policy, its economic networks and its diasporas. The future would now be written in terms of partnerships rather than military presence.
“The French are not intended to save the world or Africa but to participate in the creation of wealth and collective security,” concludes Chauvancy. This new, more pragmatic approach would allow France to free itself from a “relatively comfortable but costly” position to develop more balanced relations, based on common interests rather than the ghosts of the colonial past.
This analysis reveals how an apparent setback can turn into a major strategic opportunity, provided we agree to turn the page on a history that has become anachronistic. A lesson in political realism which could well redefine the future of Franco-African relations.
