There is a common point though : in both case we are supporting the population against a violent group of people, holding the country by force in the case of Libya, or trying to take it by force in the case of Mali.
Issue is situation in Mali is a lot more grey than that.
The Tuaregs are an ethnic group that has been heavily oppressed by the Mali government. Initial Tuareg insurgents were “secular”, though with the help of Al Qaeda Maghreb, Islamists have come to the fore.
I suspect this has more to do with French power in sub Saharan Africa than any humanist concerns.
The Western approach to these interventions has been extremely flawed:
– Supporting warlords heavily involved in drug smuggling in Afghanistan
– Creating a near failed state in Libya
– Creating a NATO protectorate in Kosovo with no political resolution in sight
– Creating an extremely unstable Iraq whilst expanding Iranian influence in Iraq.
– Protecting a corrupt government
– In Somalia destroying the first government the country had in 20 years (support of African Union troops involved in toppling an Islamic based government).
Only Bosnia was a success but then that had a political resolution and the people involved were closer to Western values. Whilst similar values are found in Serbia, Kosovo is too spiritually important for them to just let go.
The West has applied same values to Africa/Middle East despite these societies often being extremely different.
Iditioc assumptions made by Westerners:
1. That these countries are actually coherent national entities and not artificial constructs created mainly by Western powers.
2. That the local populations are loyal to their countries and not their family, clan, ethnic group or religious preferences.
3. That most Muslims approve of separation of religion and state. This is generally unheard of in Islamic countries throughout the ages.
4. That these people have western style democratic values. They want democracy but in a total different format to the West (and one that is incompatible with Western values).
5. That civil society/institutions exists in countries where there has only been colonial governance followed by dictatorial oppression or endemic warfare. Libya is a great example – first it was ruled by Italy and for most of it’s independence it was ruled by Gaddafhi. Hence all the civic institutions/society was heavily influenced and if not created by Gaddafhi.
6. Lack of economic infrastructure – all these countries had poor economic infrastructure (again including not only roads, factories but also institutions) and Western intervention didn’t help develop these. Western development aid was often misappropriated (by both West and locals).
7. Lack of proactivity – the West sat around prior to 9-11 letting threat of Islamism grow. The intelligence services got lazy. Now the West is playing catch up and in the process weakening it’s own position.
I recently read an interview with ex-CIA officers who stated that the organisation has become to paramilitary and not focused on intelligence gathering.
This is the wrong approach.
I think the approach should not be one of bombing but one of subtle action (be it funding for approved candidates, trade treaties or manipulation of local politics) and compromise where needed (e.g. opening up restrictions on trade and useful aid not designed to further interests of Western companies).
In case of Mali, France and co should’ve been pushing the Mali government to stop discriminating against Tuaregs and other ethnicities through a carrot and stick approach.
This could’ve alleviated Tuareg need to team up with AQIM or let alone pursue an insurgency.
But stupid is as stupid does.
I know this is politics but war is just a tool of politics.
Sign In
