Situation in Mali

[Raj Ahten]

With the Tuareg's having declared the north of Mali is now the nation of Azawad things are certainly getting interesting. It seems that no one is willing to support them and that it now looks to me that a multinational force (with former colonial ruler France providing all the logistics) might go in and try to reverse this situation. The junta is trying to play up the AQIM/al-Qaeda angle as hard as they can to show that they should be supported lest islamist's take over a vast swath of territory. I certainly wouldn't trust anything they say on the matter though and reports from the region are rather lean. Most press agencies seem to be going on telephoned reports from local citizens.

Reports keep mentioning that the Tuareg's got a lot of weapons from Qaddafi's stores after fighting for him as mercenaries. Anyone have any information on what new weapons they got? It seems that they are mostly a mad max type force with a lot of Toyota's with machine guns on the back from what few pictures I've seen. Anyone care to postulate about what will happen in Mali?

[Zaune]

They've already had fuel deliveries from their neighbours stopped, so I suppose it'll come down to how much fuel the army keeps in reserve. They're fairly well equipped for a country of their size; two battalions of assorted 1960s-vintage Soviet and Chinese tanks and at least some mechanised infantry in BTR-60s, with about a dozen MiG-21s and a couple of Hind gunships for air support.

[Rabid]

So, basically...

On one side, we have a barely-holding-it-together illegitimate military junta born from a putsch over the legitimate country's government ;
On the other, we have a force of ex-mercenaries "freedom fighters" trying to carve a territory of their own with stolen weapons ;
And in the middle you have a bunch of civilians and a humanitarian crisis.


My, my... People at the Quai d'Orsay must be scratching their heads hard on this one...

[Skgoa]

Why exactly would The West back the junta? IMHO brokering a peaceful secession would be the optimal thing for us to do.


edit: If I understand the available information correctly, the rebels are more than the stereotypical warlords trying to grab land. They seem to be a rather diverse alliance of people who want independence from Mali.

[Sea Skimmer]

It’s an odd situation when rebels primarily want the vast empty desert part of a country, rather then the greenish part. However the desert also holds a large portion of nation’s mineral supplies, while the green part of Mali is on track to turn into desert thanks to deforestation. The area claimed for Azawad has about 1/12th of the nations population, while making up over half its area. This is a huge factor in why the Tuareg can rightly be claimed to be ‘neglected’ by the government and why they’ve had three previous rebellions, the last one of which only ended in 2009. You can just look on a map and tell Mali is bad even African standards, in terms of drawing a nation to fill space on a map nobody wanted in a coastal colony. Its too bad since long ago it was once one of the most developed regions of sub Saharan Africa.

The Tuareg groups brought back everything they could carry, but what was by far most important were SA-24 MANPADS and Kornet heavy anti tank missiles. The SA-24s immediate shot down or drove off what few helicopters the government forces had, and forced the fixed wing stuff to bomb only from high altitude. Kornet has a good chance of destroying any tank in the world, and easily blew apart the light armor fielded against the Tuareg. Without either of those advantages, the government forces simply lack the numbers, firepower, training and ammunition needed to contain the threat. To put things in perspective, Mali has less then 10,000 activity duty personal in its entire military, had the budget is equal to about the cost of one F/A-18E Hornet.

Then that retarded coup shattered whatever will to fight they had left, and the Tuareg and various Islamist groups (supposedly some are now fighting each other) easily seized control of all the remaining government held cities and towns in the land they wanted.

Unless foreign ground intervention takes place it’s very hard to see Mali being able to reclaim its lost territory. Enough money alone might let them mobilize that 12:1 population advantage and win, but who is going to give money to a junta that can’t even control the capital? A relatively modest French backed AU force meanwhile could probably throw out the junta, and at least drive the Tuareg back into the deep desert relatively quickly. If that will happen, we'll call me skeptical, all the more so since the AU just had to come up with more men for Somalia. On the other hand, I heard news blurb that supposedly the Tuareg just arrested Algerian diplomats, and Algeria is the one nation in west africa will the means to intervene independently. Anyone else would be in the position of sending token forces; though enough token forces can add up quickly, and its unlikely the Tuareg have large stocks of advanced ammunition.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why exactly would The West back the junta? IMHO brokering a peaceful secession would be the optimal thing for us to do.

When the area trying to succeed is in fact the number one bastion of Al-Qeada in west Africa, and Tuareg leadership has gone on camera standing next to Al-Qeada leaders in the last couple days and declared strict Sharia law nobody is going to be quick to support secession. They may not be quick to back to junta either, it seems to be the junta badly miscalculated, which is not surprising in such a rapidly evolving situation, but I doubt anyone supports the Tuareg now that Qaddafi is under the sand. The most likely result is going to be the situation will fester for months.

Also keep in mind that a large fraction of the entire population of this region has fled the Tuareg advance. It isn't like everyone who lived in the area was itching for islamic takeover.

[Raj Ahten]

The only way I see a quick intervention happening is the Al-Qeada element to this might push the west to "do something." Nothing like the war on terror to get people interested in bombing things. Otherwise its really hard to get anyone riled up enough to care about something unless oil is involved. At this point even the ex colonial master of the region France is only talking about providing logistical help for any enterprise.

I fear a long drawn out crisis is the likely result of this mess, which as others have pointed out, could well lead to a humanitarian disaster.

edit: Thanks to Skimmer with the info on the new weapons. Where did you hear about that by the way?

[TimothyC]

CNN Just reported a deal between the Civilian Government and the Coup perpetrators, Brokered by ECOWAS. Sanctions would be dropped for the power to be handed back over to civilian authorities.

AlJezera is also reporting this: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/20 ... 97295.html

Representatives of West African states and the military junta which seized power in Mali are reported to have reached a deal in which the country's president and the coup leader will both stand aside.

The agreement was brokered between members of the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) and the coup leaders during talks Bamako, the Mali capital.

A group of low-ranking soldiers lead by Captain Amadou Sanago ousted President Amadou Toumani Toure on March 22, just weeks before he was due to step down after an election, citing his mishandling of the north as a primary reason for launching the coup.

In the weeks following the coup, Tuareg rebels and Islamist fighters, have captured the northern regions of Mali, with the Tuareg declaring an independent state of Azawad on Friday.

"We solemnly proclaim the independence of Azawad as from today," Mossa Ag Attaher, a spokesperson for the Tuareg based in Paris, said on Friday, adding that the rebels would respect "the borders with other states".

The Tuareg have declared the city of Gao as the capital of their new country.

Mali has been gripped by instability, following the coup and advances by Tuareg fighters and other armed groups that have seen a string of northern towns fall under their control in the broadly triangular area of desert in northern Mali

The MNLA statement on Friday stressed the group's "firm commitment to create the conditions for lasting peace [and] to initiate the institutional foundations for a state based on a democratic constitution for an independent Azawad".

Declaration questioned

However, the move was immediately questioned by the Ansar Dine, an Islamist group which also joined the fight against Malian government forces, who claim to be against independence.

"Our war is a holy war. It's a legal war in the name of Islam. We are against rebellions," Ansar Dine military chief Omar Hamaha said.

"We are against independence. We are against revolutions not in the name of Islam."

He was speaking in a video exclusively obtained by the AFP news agency and France 2 television filmed after the Islamist group's takeover of Timbuktu, where they have imposed Islamic law, forcing women to cover themselves and burning down bars.

Hamaha said they had "more than 120 prisoners" including thieves.

"We have tied them up and taken their weapons. We beat them well and it's likely we will slit their throats," he added, while it was not clear if this threat was aimed at all prisoners.

In the city of Gao, Ansar Dine kidnapped seven Algerian diplomats, according to witnesses and the Algerian foreign ministry.

Ag Attaher, speaking on behalf of the MNLA, called the kidnapping "deplorable", adding that his group had been against that action but finally went along with the move so as to spare lives.

"We are a liberation movement and we support the principles and values of democracy," he said.

"We distance ourselves completely from any Islamist movement and their fight for religious law."

Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Bamako, said the information found on the Tuareg website goes to show the unprecedented feelings of honour and pride, "after decades of suffering and wars are fights against what they describe as oppressive regimes."

"They say that finally they have an independent state, Azawad, and they will stick to that nation and fight for it until the last drop," he said.

He went on to say that since the international community does not seem convinced that an independent state is a realistic option, "the Tuareg can still hope to achieve some sense of larger autonomy, which would still be a great victory for them".

International condemnation

A series of international condemnations of the group's "independence" declaration rolled out as bodies around the world discussed the announcement.

A statement from the office of Jean Ping, the African Union's commission chair, called the announcement "null and of no value whatsoever".

"[Ping] calls on the international community as a whole to fully support this principled position of Africa," it said.

France, Mali's former colonial ruler, dismissed the declaration of independence, French defence minister Gerard Longuet said.

"A unilateral declaration of independence which is not recognised by African states would not have any meaning for us," Longuet told the Reuters news agency.

Ahmed Ouyahia, Algeria's prime minister, was quoted by France's Le Monde newspaper as saying the neighbouring country would "never accept questioning Mali's territorial integrity".

The UK Foreign Office released a statement saying they had temporarily suspended all in-country services, including consular services, and withdrawn their staff from the embassy in Bamako.

Alessandra Giuffrida, an anthropologist in the African Studies Department at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the UK, psoke to Al Jazeera about the legality of creating an independent state for the Tuaregs.

"They are taking advantage of a new situation, which is the lack of a constitutional government in Bamako, which means the MNLA was able to claim, according to international law, independence, and this is a new fact which has never occurred before in the history of the Tuareg," she said.

"According to international law experts, this actually gives the Tuareg some ground to fight legally for the independence of their state."

Giuffrida said the reaction of the international community was important because "they have an interest in maintaining the status quo".

"There is economic interest in the north of the country after the discovery of mineral resources," she said.

'Strange situation'

"The coup leaders were of the view that they would get more support from the people because of the failure of the military establishment to cope with the situation," said Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Bamako.

"But they suddenly found themselves in a strange situation - the coup leaders lost control of half of the country, and they're now hoping for international support."

The MNLA, which on Thursday said it had halted military operations as a result of their capture of the Azawad, called on the international community to recognise its independence.

"We completely accept the role and responsibility that behoves us to secure this territory," Ag Attaher said. "We have ended a very important fight, that of liberation ... now the biggest task commences."

But a Malian military source told the AFP news agency that Ansar Dine leader Iyad Ag Ghaly wielded more power in the north, with the backing of alleged regional al-Qaeda fighters.

"From what we know, the MNLA is in charge of nothing at the moment ... it is Iyad who is the strongest and he is with AQIM," the source said, referring to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Salafist flag

Witnesses told AFP that raiders had hoisted the black Salafist flag that has been the emblem of rebels who had overrun Gao, Timbuktu and other northern towns.

Amnesty International warned that north Mali was on the brink of a "major humanitarian disaster" while Oxfam and World Vision said crippling sanctions against the junta could have devastating consequences.

"All the food and medicine stored by major aid agencies has been looted and most of the aid workers have fled," said Gaetan Mootoo, Amnesty International's researcher on west Africa.

"The population is at imminent risk of severe food and medical shortages that could lead to many casualties especially among women and children who are less able to fend for themselves."

[Skgoa]

Why exactly would The West back the junta? IMHO brokering a peaceful secession would be the optimal thing for us to do.

When the area trying to succeed is in fact the number one bastion of Al-Qeada in west Africa, and Tuareg leadership has gone on camera standing next to Al-Qeada leaders in the last couple days and declared strict Sharia law nobody is going to be quick to support secession. They may not be quick to back to junta either, it seems to be the junta badly miscalculated, which is not surprising in such a rapidly evolving situation, but I doubt anyone supports the Tuareg now that Qaddafi is under the sand. The most likely result is going to be the situation will fester for months.

Also keep in mind that a large fraction of the entire population of this region has fled the Tuareg advance. It isn't like everyone who lived in the area was itching for islamic takeover.

So, instead of showing the impoverished and disenfranchised peoples of the world that we are on their side, if they stay in reasonable bounds, we are going to proof once again that Al-Qaida and anti-western ideologies are the way to go? Yeah, I have that strange feeling this isn't going to benefit us in the long run. But then again, western support of local oppressors hasn't led to any massive terror attacks in our major cities. Who could expect us to know better.

[Block]

Why exactly would The West back the junta? IMHO brokering a peaceful secession would be the optimal thing for us to do.

When the area trying to succeed is in fact the number one bastion of Al-Qeada in west Africa, and Tuareg leadership has gone on camera standing next to Al-Qeada leaders in the last couple days and declared strict Sharia law nobody is going to be quick to support secession. They may not be quick to back to junta either, it seems to be the junta badly miscalculated, which is not surprising in such a rapidly evolving situation, but I doubt anyone supports the Tuareg now that Qaddafi is under the sand. The most likely result is going to be the situation will fester for months.

Also keep in mind that a large fraction of the entire population of this region has fled the Tuareg advance. It isn't like everyone who lived in the area was itching for islamic takeover.

So, instead of showing the impoverished and disenfranchised peoples of the world that we are on their side, if they stay in reasonable bounds, we are going to proof once again that Al-Qaida and anti-western ideologies are the way to go? Yeah, I have that strange feeling this isn't going to benefit us in the long run. But then again, western support of local oppressors hasn't led to any massive terror attacks in our major cities. Who could expect us to know better.

Um Skoga, the US specifically doesn't recognize either the coup or the Tuareg rebels as legitimate governments, we're still pushing for re-establishment of the legitimately elected civilian government.

[madd0ct0r]

Could we do that?

A nice big UN controlled zone, safe haven ect. Pour money in to try and get infrastructure up and running as fast as the population flee to it, rigourus no weapns policy and bomb the shit out of any military force that approaches it without 2 weeks notice.

[Skgoa]

So, instead of showing the impoverished and disenfranchised peoples of the world that we are on their side, if they stay in reasonable bounds, we are going to proof once again that Al-Qaida and anti-western ideologies are the way to go? Yeah, I have that strange feeling this isn't going to benefit us in the long run. But then again, western support of local oppressors hasn't led to any massive terror attacks in our major cities. Who could expect us to know better.

Um Skoga, the US specifically doesn't recognize either the coup or the Tuareg rebels as legitimate governments, we're still pushing for re-establishment of the legitimately elected civilian government.

So?

[Rabid]

So?

So it means you just had a knee-jerk reaction. Skimmer wasn't saying the West should support one side of the other, he just explained why in particular it wasn't likely for the West to support the Tuaregs.
That's all.

As for the idea of a UN Neutral Zone, I don't know if the UN Charter would allow something like that... Does it ? Is there antecedents ?

[Captain Seafort]

As for the idea of a UN Neutral Zone, I don't know if the UN Charter would allow something like that... Does it ? Is there antecedents ?

Southern Lebanon before the war, northern and southern Iraq during the 90s and the green line in Cyprus spring to mind. Besides, the Charter is flexible enough to be either interpreted creatively or outright ignored if it's doing more harm than good.

[Simon_Jester]

It seems to me that the most logical response might be for nations like the US to avoid recognizing either side, whether or not that goes with a neutral zone from the UN. Not because it's about Al Qaeda, not because it's about plucky freedom fighters opposing a tyrannical/oppressive/absentee-landlord government. But because the US government has no specific, meaningful goal that explains getting involved in Mali. It's not really any of our business what sort of government people create among themselves in a country 5000 miles away that neither helps nor harms us.

Thinking the other way around about this- that it's our business what happens everywhere, regardless of distance or neutrality or the right of nation-states to sort out their own politics... That's a big factor in the rise of imperialism, because we end up with a network of entanglements and clients everywhere, as has already happened to the US. We shouldn't be trying to make the network more complicated than it already is. When we have an opportunity to say "we will remain neutral in this conflict," I think it'd be wise for us to take it.

[TimothyC]

It seems to me that the most logical response might be for nations like the US to avoid recognizing either side, whether or not that goes with a neutral zone from the UN. Not because it's about Al Qaeda, not because it's about plucky freedom fighters opposing a tyrannical/oppressive/absentee-landlord government. But because the US government has no specific, meaningful goal that explains getting involved in Mali. It's not really any of our business what sort of government people create among themselves in a country 5000 miles away that neither helps nor harms us.

Thinking the other way around about this- that it's our business what happens everywhere, regardless of distance or neutrality or the right of nation-states to sort out their own politics... That's a big factor in the rise of imperialism, because we end up with a network of entanglements and clients everywhere, as has already happened to the US. We shouldn't be trying to make the network more complicated than it already is. When we have an opportunity to say "we will remain neutral in this conflict," I think it'd be wise for us to take it.

The US and France were both backing the Mali government prior to the Coup - or as the US State Department Called it - the Mutiny (by calling it a mutiny, there were able to temporarily suspend the funding that was going to fight Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Had it been called a coup, they would have been required to do more than just a temporary suspension.

[Skgoa]

So?

So it means you just had a knee-jerk reaction.

Nope.

Skimmer wasn't saying the West should support one side of the other, he just explained why in particular it wasn't likely for the West to support the Tuaregs.
That's all.

And none of that is in any way, shape or form an answer to my post. Note how I wrote what I think SHOULD be done, not what WILL be done.

As for the idea of a UN Neutral Zone, I don't know if the UN Charter would allow something like that... Does it ? Is there antecedents ?

The Security Council can and does impose cease-fires and demilitarized zones.

[Simon_Jester]

It seems to me that the most logical response might be for nations like the US to avoid recognizing either side, whether or not that goes with a neutral zone from the UN. Not because it's about Al Qaeda, not because it's about plucky freedom fighters opposing a tyrannical/oppressive/absentee-landlord government. But because the US government has no specific, meaningful goal that explains getting involved in Mali. It's not really any of our business what sort of government people create among themselves in a country 5000 miles away that neither helps nor harms us.

Thinking the other way around about this- that it's our business what happens everywhere, regardless of distance or neutrality or the right of nation-states to sort out their own politics... That's a big factor in the rise of imperialism, because we end up with a network of entanglements and clients everywhere, as has already happened to the US. We shouldn't be trying to make the network more complicated than it already is. When we have an opportunity to say "we will remain neutral in this conflict," I think it'd be wise for us to take it.

The US and France were both backing the Mali government prior to the Coup - or as the US State Department Called it - the Mutiny (by calling it a mutiny, there were able to temporarily suspend the funding that was going to fight Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Had it been called a coup, they would have been required to do more than just a temporary suspension.

I can sort of see the argument for going that far. If you've made a low-key deal for some minor objective, suspending it for the duration of a rebellion isn't really a major statement of legitimacy beyond the usual. Nation-states normally default to recognizing a stable government and refusing to acknowledge any upstart that tries to overthrow the government, unless it takes over to the extent of becoming a new government. Nothing strange about that.

But to start seriously pushing major resources into this conflict, to proclaim actively that we favor the rebels, or the coup-troops, or the government, and to take a side in their war... that just seems like a bad idea to me, and one with no tangible return on investment. I've had enough of this endless desire to wage wars in every country in the world where any group calls itself "Al-Qaeda."

Oh, and Tim? You're falling into the pit of Random Conservative Capitalization.

[Block]

It seems to me that the most logical response might be for nations like the US to avoid recognizing either side, whether or not that goes with a neutral zone from the UN. Not because it's about Al Qaeda, not because it's about plucky freedom fighters opposing a tyrannical/oppressive/absentee-landlord government. But because the US government has no specific, meaningful goal that explains getting involved in Mali. It's not really any of our business what sort of government people create among themselves in a country 5000 miles away that neither helps nor harms us.

Thinking the other way around about this- that it's our business what happens everywhere, regardless of distance or neutrality or the right of nation-states to sort out their own politics... That's a big factor in the rise of imperialism, because we end up with a network of entanglements and clients everywhere, as has already happened to the US. We shouldn't be trying to make the network more complicated than it already is. When we have an opportunity to say "we will remain neutral in this conflict," I think it'd be wise for us to take it.

The US and France were both backing the Mali government prior to the Coup - or as the US State Department Called it - the Mutiny (by calling it a mutiny, there were able to temporarily suspend the funding that was going to fight Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Had it been called a coup, they would have been required to do more than just a temporary suspension.

I can sort of see the argument for going that far. If you've made a low-key deal for some minor objective, suspending it for the duration of a rebellion isn't really a major statement of legitimacy beyond the usual. Nation-states normally default to recognizing a stable government and refusing to acknowledge any upstart that tries to overthrow the government, unless it takes over to the extent of becoming a new government. Nothing strange about that.

But to start seriously pushing major resources into this conflict, to proclaim actively that we favor the rebels, or the coup-troops, or the government, and to take a side in their war... that just seems like a bad idea to me, and one with no tangible return on investment. I've had enough of this endless desire to wage wars in every country in the world where any group calls itself "Al-Qaeda."

Oh, and Tim? You're falling into the pit of Random Conservative Capitalization.

We're not pushing resources into it, we're threatening to take resources we're giving away unless the legitimately elected government is restored. I don't see why that would be a problem.

[Rabid]

@ Skgoa :

An independent North-Mali (or whatever its name would be) is something that no-one want, and the African Union first among everyone, because of a fundamental deal that was made in Africa when the continent was being de-colonized in the second half of the XXth century : the intangibility of African Frontiers.

Basically and long story short, to avoid seeing the newly-independent African states going to war with each others to correct perceived "territorial injustices", and to avoid civil wars of independence (as we are seeing now), it was (more or less) agreed that no-one was to try to change the frontiers drawn by the colonial powers, or recognize secessionist states : you could have countries choosing to unite (Mali and Senegal at the time, but they soon parted their ways), but you couldn't have countries starting to balkanize - South-Sudan is a noteworthy exception in this case, I don't know what's exact deal with it...


In short, no-one is going to recognize the Tuaregs' independent state, as it would go against the very framework of post-colonial Africa.

[Ultonius]

An independent North-Mali (or whatever its name would be) is something that no-one want, and the African Union first among everyone, because of a fundamental deal that was made in Africa when the continent was being de-colonized in the second half of the XXth century : the intangibility of African Frontiers.

Basically and long story short, to avoid seeing the newly-independent African states going to war with each others to correct perceived "territorial injustices", and to avoid civil wars of independence (as we are seeing now), it was (more or less) agreed that no-one was to try to change the frontiers drawn by the colonial powers, or recognize secessionist states : you could have countries choosing to unite (Mali and Senegal at the time, but they soon parted their ways), but you couldn't have countries starting to balkanize - South-Sudan is a noteworthy exception in this case, I don't know what's exact deal with it...


In short, no-one is going to recognize the Tuaregs' independent state, as it would go against the very framework of post-colonial Africa.

South Sudan held a referendum that showed that an overwhelming majority wanted independence, which may have been a factor in its independence being recognized. The fact that the Tuareg spokesman quoted in the article posted by TimothyC specifically mentioned that there were no plans to alter external borders suggests that the secessionists are aware that doing otherwise would discourage international support. Of course, as the article states, the Tuareg might well be satisfied with local autonomy, if they cannot achieve an independent state. It's possible that they may have been encouraged by the example of Somaliland, which has achieved stability (arguably more than the UN-backed government in Mogadishu), and some limited recognition from other countries.

[Omega18]

South-Sudan is a noteworthy exception in this case, I don't know what's exact deal with it...

One notable detail is that until 1947 and the Juba Conference, the British had been treating North and South Sudan as two pretty distinct administrative units. (In other words the decision to unify Sudan was made at virtually the last minute before the country was made independent.)

The South Sudan area proceeded to have in various forms, civil war with the North, rebellions, and general civil unrest from 1955 until 2005 with a peace agreement that in combination with international pressure on Sudan, allowed South Sudan to declared independence and receive general international recognition in 2011.

[Captain Seafort]

It's possible that they may have been encouraged by the example of Somaliland, which has achieved stability (arguably more than the UN-backed government in Mogadishu), and some limited recognition from other countries.

Arguably? While it admittedly isn't difficult, Somaliland (and to a lesser degree Puntland) is unquestionably more stable than southern Somalia. It's an independent, stable and relatively prosperous country in all but name.

[Simon_Jester]

Then the argument is easy to make- all the better.

We're not pushing resources into it, we're threatening to take resources we're giving away unless the legitimately elected government is restored. I don't see why that would be a problem.

A close reading of my words makes it predictable how I'll respond to this:

"Exactly, Block. Thta's exactly right."

[Skgoa]

@Rabid: Thank you, that was very informative.