Mali ? Isn't that in...?
The rapidity by which France deployed its military assets in Mali took many people (including myself) by surprise.
I mean, the last time Mali was featured in the mainstream press was a year ago, when the disgruntled army deposed the then president (and ex-general) Touré. The coup naturally garnered the standard fare of international condemnations. But for many people it was simply a case of "disgruntled and poorly funded/managed army deposes president, who himself deposed a so-called president almost 20 years ago". So business as usual in Africa then.
Only it wasn't. Since the March Revolution (22-28 March 1992), Mali was considered to be one of the most stable and, politically at least, successful West African countries. You can bet the donors were pleased: finally a country that took their money and acted like a true democracy! From 1992 to 2012 there were only 2 presidents but their mandates were regarded as constitutional and the elections that got them there to be fair. It was the Malian army's defeat against a guerrilla group, the MNLA, that prompted the coup.
Northern Mali is mainly populated by Tuareg and Arabic ethnic groups who are mostly nomadic. In the late 80's and 90's they began returning to northern Mali and demanded more autonomy for Azawad (what they call Northern Mali). This never really sat well with the leadership in Bamako and eventually the MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) allied itself with Islamic groups such as Ansar Dine and AQMI (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) who were already operating from the relative safety of the Sahara/Sahel for some time. On 16th January 2012, the alliance of the secular MNLA and the Islamic AQMI then began to push south and, by March, the battered Malian army had deposed the Malian president. On 5th April, after the capture of Douentza, the MNLA called off its offensive and declared independence for Azawad.
Yes but why, I hear you ask, have the French stormed into Mali so suddenly? And why the French, instead of say, the Americans ?
The short answer to that is because the Malian government asked France to intervene.
After the coup, international and local pressure managed to restore an interim government in Mali, thanks in part to the intervention of Allassane Ouattara, president of Cote D'Ivoire. Ouattara is himself in power thanks to French military intervention after the French got fed up with the antics of Laurent Gbagbo, the sitting president at the time. But Gbagbo's short -lived but ballsy blackmail of France and its consequence aren't quite relevant here.
During the coup, the MNLA and its allies tried to seize the opportunity for more land grab, but eventually the secular movement found itself at odds with its Islamic allies, as the Northern population began to reject the imposition of Sharia law. The MNLA was eventually kicked out of Azawad and - confronted by unstable circumstances and the renewed advance of Islamic forces to the south - the interim government called on France for support.
Why France? Well the colonial ties are undeniable, of course. Being an ex French colony, Mali has kept close diplomatic and economic ties with France since its independence in 1960. But more practically, France has maintained several military bases in Africa: including in Djibouti, Chad, Cote D'Ivoire and Gabon. These bases also include airfields, which are essential for projecting troops. France has also been conducting special forces operations in the Sahel for some while, as a response to the threat of AQMI. Overall France can put infantry, light armour and air assets in theatre anywhere in West Africa in a matter of hours. In fact most of France's QRF's (Quick Reaction Forces) are based in Africa just for this kind of occasion.
US military presence is actually rather limited in Africa. Aside from a contingent of US marines based in Djibouti, along side French Legionnaires, US military operations tend towards support actions. Most of their troops deployed in Africa are special forces on foreign exchange and training missions, but they have nothing of the kind needed to conduct a serious ground war on hand.
France is the only western power capable of projecting sizeable forces, so quickly, in West Africa. Out of all the modern western armies, the French army is also the most experienced when it comes to fighting in Africa, having been there for almost 200 years.
So France has plenty of hardware in Africa, and unafraid to intervene since it renounced its colonies. Post-colonialism anyone ?
No. France was invited, in extreme urgency, as military aid to be provided by neighbouring African countries (which had been agreed up almost a year ago, and was sanctioned by the UN) failed materialise. This is Africa, so no real big surprise there. It is commonly agreed that French intervention saved Mali from Islamic takeover. And that's the point.
This isn't one of those nasty civil wars that have unfortunately afflicted Africa for so long, where things get so bad the West has to step in. Many have likened French intervention in Africa as a patronising parent separating bickering children, but French military intervention has saved lives by putting a stop to extreme political violence that often takes place these during civil wars. The battle of Kolwezi in 1979 is a good example of that.
Northern Mali has been infiltrated and then straight up invaded by fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups, often composed of foreigners. These groups are intent on waging jihad and imposing Sharia law in the territories they operate. Mali is the new front in the global war on terror, and as such has received support from the international community. #
Furthermore, although French foreign policy often rests on obtaining consensus and the approval of the international community, the French will not hesitate to act unilaterally to defend their interests. After Indochina, the French realised that they could no longer impose military might all over the world, so decided to focus on protecting French interests closest to home: Africa. During the decolonisation period, the French made several discreet agreements with the newly independent countries, including many security guarantees. Although informal, these guarantees were very real, backed by the presence of bases in the region and actual interventions - almost 50 in as many years.
And they worked. Apart from the notable exception of Cote D'Ivoire, these security guarantees did a relatively good job of keeping the peace in West Africa. These informal guarantees were eventually abandoned in a formal way when the French government almost got accidentally caught up defending the Hutus in Rwanda as they set about slaughtering the Tutsis. In the wake of this France did not intervene in Cote D'Ivoire in 1999 (the decision was vetoed by President Chirac), but found itself back there anyway in 2002 after Gbagbo's infamous blackmail trick. Old habits.
So what now ?
Good question: there are many more unknowns at this stage. When will the African contingent arrive and who will take charge of the campaign? How long will the fighting go on for? Will other Western powers put boots on the ground? Will the case of the MNLA (now in accord with Malian government) be dealt with officially now? Will the Malian army be held into account for its alleged abuses? And if the Islamic fighters are kicked out of Mali, where will they go? Etc, etc...
The fact is what is playing out in Mali is important not just for France but for the whole world. Do the rich countries have economic interests in the region? Absolutely. But this is about more than protecting gold mines, this about denying the enemy a safe haven where it can continue its campaign of kidnappings and drug running to fund terrorist operations. This is about defending a legitimate government against a foreign fundamentalist force intent on imposing their belief systems on the whole of West Africa, by force.
And for the French, this is also about being true to their word, however unofficial it may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment