Niger orders three Chinese oil officials out of country, sources say
NIAMEY, March 14 (Reuters) - Niger's junta has ordered three Chinese officials working in the oil sector to leave the country, two sources familiar with the decision told Reuters on Friday, in the latest move by regional military governments to assert greater control over resources.
The request for the departure of the Niger-based directors of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the West African Oil Pipeline Company (WAPCo) and the joint venture oil refinery SORAZ was communicated Wednesday, the sources said.
The Chinese officials were given 48 hours to leave, and one source close to the government said on Friday they were out of the country.
The other source, who is close to the affected companies, said the directors were asked to leave because of disputes over pay for local staff and the pace of work on projects.
Separately, Niger's tourism ministry last week rescinded the license for a Chinese-operated hotel in Niamey, citing discriminatory practices.
Spokespeople for the military junta, which took power in a coup in 2023, and the West African country's oil ministry did not respond to requests for comment.
WAPCo and CNPC did not respond to requests for comment. SORAZ could not be reached for comment.
Niger last year signed a memorandum of understanding with CNPC worth $400 million linked to the sale of crude oil from its Agadem oilfield.
The Niger junta has torn up defence agreements with the United States and former colonial power France. Authorities also took control of French nuclear fuels company Orano's Somair uranium mine.
Military governments in Mali and Burkina Faso have similarly used legal disputes to assert greater control over resources including gold.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Hope for 100s of Scots jobs hit by bus firm plan to go to England
And it has emerged that the SNP-led Scottish Government and the Labour-led UK Government have agreed to establish a joint working group to discuss options to find a solution and avert job losses. They are looking at how far they 'can push' the UK 'state aid' rules set out in the Subsidy Control Act 2022 to create a support package to save the 400 jobs. The second meeting of that working group was held on Monday last week and it is due to meet again this week. An Alexander Dennis source said that they are engaging with both governments "in good faith on the possibility of any intervention" and stressed that a final decision on the move had not yet been made. Read more: The Scottish Government came under fire after the deputy first minister Kate Forbes pledged to leave "no stone unturned" in securing a future for ADL. Kate Forbes (Image: Colin Mearns) Ministers have said there was "cause of hope in terms of looking at a way through the challenges". A row erupted in the Scottish Parliament in the wake of revelations in the Herald over the depth of the public funding for Scottish jobs over the past ten years - and even while it was cutting back its workforce by a third five years ago. The Herald also revealed how the First Minister was warned of Alexander Dennis concerns last summer a year before announcing plans last week to relocate to England putting 400 jobs at risk. Alexander Dennis, which has factories in Falkirk and Larbert, said it was considering moving manufacturing to a site in Scarborough. The plans would see work at the Falkirk site discontinued, while the Larbert site would be closed after current contracts are completed. The company said it was facing strong competition from Chinese electric bus manufacturers whose share of the market had risen from 10% to 35%. Alexander Dennis, which manufactures single and double decker buses, said the new proposed structure would lower costs and increase efficiency. Calls have been made to claw public money back money if Alexander Dennis follows through with its plans. The Herald revealed that the row between ministers and ADL emerged over levels of support and had its roots in Scottish Government schemes launched from 2020 to accelerate the use and manufacture of zero and low emission buses in Scotland and 'help drive a green recovery out of the Covid pandemic" which have been worth a total of £155.8m to date. The SNP launched their financial case for Scottish independence at Alexander Dennis (Image: Newsquest) Frustrations emerged after May 2023 when Alexander Dennis hosted the second phase of the Scottish Government's Zero Emissions Bus Challenge Fund (ScotZEB) which was to have funding worth £58m. It also showcased its Enviro100EV concept, a lightweight single-deck zero-emission bus with new in-house battery powertrain confirmed that grant backing accelerated its development. In a scathing letter seen by The Herald, Paul Soubry, president and chief executive of Alexander Dennis's parent company NFI, told John Swinney that recent developments had 'regretfully left [them] with the impression that the Scottish Government has little regard for domestic bus manufacturing jobs in Scotland'. The First Minister was also told they had already been 'forced' to offshore certain manufacturing functions to China. But a Scottish Government memo said that ADL had received orders for 363 zero-emission buses from ScotZEB more than any other manufacturer benefitting from the schemes. A separate briefing states that Alexander Dennis was awarded only 17% or 44 buses from second phase of the programme. A significant grant through the ScotZeb 2 programme was awarded to Zenobe, and its consortium of bus and coach operators to support the transition of bus fleets to electric. ADL, which incurred total losses over three years of £44.9m between 2021 and 2023, made its own bid to the programme but was unsuccessful. While ADL was a supplier to the successful consortium it was not a formal part of it. An Alexander Dennis spokesman said: 'Our focus remains on ensuring our people are supported during our consultation process. "This is a challenging time, and we are grateful for the active engagement from the Scottish and UK Governments and other political parties and stakeholders to discuss options and possible interventions. "It is clear there is a shared ambition to ensure the Scottish and UK manufacturing industry is protected and can thrive and we hope that we can encourage a cross-nation, collaborative approach as we continue to progress these important discussions.' The Scottish Government has said that policy interventions had been designed to "accelerate uptake of zero emission buses in the Scottish market". According to Scottish ministers, ADL secured orders for more than 360 vehicles through Scottish Government funding programmes. And they say the route to providing further support involves looking at ADL's cost base, considering what additional support can be provided to help with productivity and to lower costs and to look at how an order book can be developed for the company. They to say that there is "cause for hope" and that there were "solutions" that can be delivered through the collaborative process. While they say they have to abide by public procurement regulations and subsidy controls, but were working on a "support package" for the company.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Tunnock's is not to blame for society's problems
We know why the government feels this is necessary: we have eyes and the official figures provide the proof. In 2003, according to the Scottish Government, one-quarter of adults in Scotland were obese. Now it's one-third. And with obesity comes increased risk of cancer, diabetes and death and, as the UK Government points out, a cost of billions of pounds to the NHS. We are deep in a serious crisis that's getting worse. The question is how we get out of it and Tunnock's feels it is being unfairly targeted. Its sales director Fergus Loudon said in Scottish Grocer magazine that the food industry was being blamed for societal problems that were not of its making. 'Banning chocolate biscuit ads on TV before nine o'clock to prevent obesity,' he said, 'is rather like banning foreign holidays to prevent skin damage from too much sun.' A couple of things are going on here. First, it would be stupid to deny that food ads have an effect and that restricting ads can have some effect on what we buy and eat. The science writer Ellen Ruppel Shell points out in her very good book on obesity, Fat Wars, that Burger King spends more than half-a-billion dollars on promotional efforts every year and does it because it works. Conversely, no or little advertising would have the opposite effect to some extent and reduce consumption. 'Free-market capitalism is wonderful for many things,' says Shell, 'but public health is not among them.' However, accepting that advertising has an effect is not the same as solving the health crisis because it goes deeper than that. There's been virtually no advertising of vapes and vaping, for instance, and yet vaping has exploded as a habit. It's also worth pointing out that Tunnock's (est. 1890) was around when there wasn't an obesity crisis and is around when there absolutely is an obesity crisis. Of course, a ban on ads will have an effect around the edges, but the crisis will go on until we tackle the deeper trends advertising cannot change – what Mr Loudon of Tunnock's calls societal problems. I raise this subject whenever I talk to people in the food industry and it pretty much always comes back to the same few things. I had lunch with the French chef Jean-Christophe Novelli in Edinburgh and asked him what he thought was to blame for obesity. He said without a moment's hesitation: mobiles. We're getting fatter, he said, because of what we've done to our brains with technology – the constant messages, the instant gratification – and it means we're more absorbed in technology than in cooking and eating well. 'This is the thing that inflates your stomach,' he said, pointing to his phone. I agree with chef Novelli – we know phones are changing the way we behave, I can feel it myself. We also know it starts young. Children are much less likely now to be active and outdoors because they prefer their phones but Shell also writes in Fat Wars that no-one is born with a taste for hot, bitter or sour or, for that matter, single malt or cigars: tastes develop with exposure and social pressure – and that's fine as long as the influences are good. However, as Shell points out, in the US and the UK, children increasingly dictate family food choices, which leaves households 'immersed in a miasma of one-dimensional sweet taste that reinforces and entrains juvenile preferences'. Read more Are you 'upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong? Anyone who grew up in the 1970s or earlier will know how true this is. I try to avoid using the phrase 'in my day' if I can, but in my day it was your parents who dictated the food choices based on what was good for you and how much it cost. Sweet foods like a Tunnock's Caramel Log, or the greatest British biscuit of all, the custard cream, were allowed as a treat but only a treat. By contrast, children now appear to be able to wield control and a veto on certain foods that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s. Adverts were around then and adverts are around now – it's the parenting that's changed. How we fix the problem isn't easy – we're now into the second generation of parents who don't know how to cook and have handed food choices to their kids. But another chef I've spoken to is Gary Maclean, senior chef lecturer at City of Glasgow College and a winner of MasterChef: The Professionals. He knows what's he talking about because he lived it. He grew up in the 1970s when most food was cooked from scratch and something like Wimpy was a treat. Now, kids are outdoors much less than they were, and McDonald's and KFC are a ubiquitous part of many children's diets. Result: fat kids. Maclean is well aware that an important factor in all of this is poverty. Unhealthy rubbish is relatively cheap. There was also an interesting Glasgow University study which showed that fast-food outlets are six times more prevalent in the poorest parts of the city. And it's all borne out by what happens to children and adults. By primary one, five-year-olds in Scotland are more than twice as likely to be at risk of obesity if they're from the most deprived catchments compared to the least. Roughly the same with adults: the obesity rate in the most affluent areas is 26% compared to 36% in the poorest neighbourhoods. An ad for Tunnock's (Image: Newsquest) You may think the answer to the problem is to tax unhealthy food, but Gary Maclean's concern is that it just makes life for poorer people even harder. Much better, he says, to try to get in early and encourage good habits at an early stage. If he had his way, he would make cooking and food education compulsory in schools – and it's hard to resist his logic. 'Learning to cook is just as important as learning to write,' he said. 'PE is compulsory and what you eat is just as important as what you do.' His conclusion is that Scotland has the best food in the world but the worst diet, and only something fundamental such as compulsory food lessons at school will change it. You could introduce all the rules on ads you like – you could ban ads for Tunnock's Teacakes entirely – but not only would that be unfair on a firm like Tunnock's that's trying to promote its product, it would only make a marginal difference on a population affected, and made unhealthier, by deeper trends. As it happens, Mr Loudon of Tunnock's also believes it's education that will address the problem and he's right: don't change the ads, change how we see them, and react to them. There's nothing wrong with a biscuit or two as part of a healthy balanced diet; all we need to do is to re-learn the fact.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Only Trump supporters are surprised by the President's bombing decision
POOL/AFP via Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Over the weekend, President Trump's bombing of Iran's three nuclear sites has split his Make America Great Again supporter base. His normally outspoken and brazen acolytes have been learning to mid-air somersault as they seek to rationalise and excuse the President's decision. These commentators, after all, are the ones who have bleated an America First policy of non-interventionism. The bombing goes against everything the MAGA movement stands for. They say domestic policy, protectionist trade, and American nationalism are utterly incompatible with global interventionism and that spinning the Middle East roulette wheel and claiming you can foresee the outcome is utter madness. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But why are they surprised? The MAGA movement aspires to a status of selective global engagement. For most of the 19th century, Britain was diplomatically isolated, having what Lord Palmerston called "no eternal allies" to whom she owed favours. The obverse of this, of course, was that no other country owed favours to her. Trump's hostility to NATO lends credence to this ambition, but his unwavering allegiance to Israel continues to tie America's fate to the Middle East. His decision to strike Iran on the back of Israel's attack on June 13 can hardly come as a shock when the President has continued America's tradition of long-standing military and economic support for the country. American foreign policy has always been split: on the one hand, some believe the country should be an inspiring "Shining City on a Hill" example to others. Conversely, others are convinced that only intervention and a total military and economic global hegemony will liberate the world from despotism and fanaticism and shape it in America's image. The two dominant ideologies in the United States about foreign policy are interventionism, which encourages military and political intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, and isolationism, which discourages this. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is an old controversy dating back to the Founding Fathers, who struggled to reconcile the opportunities of continental security with the realities of a British, Spanish, and French imperial world. No president has ever managed to reconcile their ambition with what our own former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, called "Events, dear boy, events." In the American tradition, there has never been a clear demarcation between Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, on whether the US should embrace a global role. "America First," after all, was first deployed by Woodrow Wilson, who was reluctant for the country to enter World War 1 (it, of course, subsequently did in 1917). Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson's Republican bitter rival and predecessor, believed the country should "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt's approach to foreign policy was to negotiate peacefully and maintain a strong military presence to back up one's words. In the 19th century, the United States transitioned from an isolationist, post-colonial regional power to a trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific power. Debates about restraint and international engagement are still the same as they were at the turn of the last two centuries and just as self-deludingly hypocritical. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad President James Monroe declared the eponymous Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It stated that further European colonisation or intervention in the Americas would be viewed as hostile toward the United States. Monroe nevertheless expanded trade and pacified relations with Great Britain while growing the United States at the expense of the Spanish Empire, including obtaining Florida with the Adams–Onís Treaty in 1819. Likewise, Dollar diplomacy, notably during the presidency of William Howard Taft, sought to minimise the use or threat of military force by using the United States' economic power to further its aims in Latin America and East Asia. With no loss of irony, Taft was a proponent of American imperialism in the early 20th century, and like his presidential descendant, he considered North American economic integration with Canada inevitable. More often than not, internationalism is forced upon leaders. America passed successive Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to keep the country out of the Second World War. By the time of the Pearl Harbour attacks on December 8, 1941, America had been involved in a Destroyers-for-bases deal in 1940, and this was followed by the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941, which allowed the U.S. to sell, lend or give war materials to nations Roosevelt wanted to support: Britain, France, and China. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 likewise promised unabated assistance to anti-communist allies. Security does not begin or stop, as Trump tends to forget, at a literal border. No one presumably ever wants war, but it is a house of cards to build a cult of personality, as Trump has done, around the notion that he is not an international adventurer, a NeoCon imperialist, or an American Caesar. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Iranian regime is one of the most awful the world has seen. Since the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, they have tortured and tormented their people more than any foreign power. The regime's clear ambitions have consistently drawn strong opposition from Western countries and neighbouring states in the Middle East. The Trump presidency cannot pretend this reality does not exist, and Israel certainly cannot. "Trust in Trump" is now an exercise in faith. The problem, as Trump supporters will soon discover, is that the central tenets of MAGA are contradictory and more at home in a pre-WW2 world where the world was less interconnected. Complexity begets complexity, and only the stupid believe that war is an Occam's razor. You can do nothing, you cannot do everything. This is the irony of superpowers. America has been, and very likely will always be, caught in a game of setting an example to the world and being the world's policeman. It is a question for history as to whether this example is a good one or not. To defend its interests, the US has engaged in extrajudicial, covert, and military engagements in the name of everything from security to humanitarianism.
