At the 2012 UN General Assembly, the request for a UN intervention in Mali came from all corners: the US, France and the distrusted, ineffective leaders of southern Mali.

The Tuareg independence movement which has cut Mali in two, never had a chance in the international community, but that doesn’t mean all is lost for the backers of a new state they call Azawad.

For Hillary Clinton and Francois Hollande, it’s clear that war is the only solution, simply skipping over a push for peace talks. Instead, they talk about gathering multinational “forces”, and a “peace force” is an oxymoron. Instead, at the UN gathering, France and the US greased the diplomatic wheels with more than 40 other countries in order to lead the latest in a never-ending string of Western military interventions in Africa.

All that’s left is to secure public approval, and that’s easily done - since day one of the Tuareg revolt, the Western media has unquestioningly trumpeted the politicians’ cry of “Islamic wolf”: Agence France Press (AFP) just released an article focusing on the oppression of northern Malian women living under Islamic law; Associated Press (AP) recently produced an interview with Tuareg colonel who has left the secessionist movement because “we need to think about saving the population which is suffering” (I imagine we’ll hear of this colonel again when the West needs a Tuareg puppet). Propaganda for a “humanitarian intervention” in order to mobilize public opinion - the West can check that off their ‘To Do” list.

Let’s say that the West is right about the seriousness of the threat of militants in Mali (who are said to be funded by Kuwait). Fine, but this would still be a minor problem - the larger problem is the 1.2 million nomadic Tuaregs, the indigenous population of the Sahel who have been fighting an independence movement for more than a century.

Perhaps the Tuaregs don’t deserve northern Mali - and I am not condoning their armed revolt - but this for diplomacy, and only diplomacy to decide. Furthermore, misunderstanding or misrepresenting the roots of the Malian conflict is going to permit another disastrous outside intervention instead of a peaceful solution to their legitimate grievances.

Many at the UN don’t want peace, and that’s why they refuse to make an accurate distinction in Mali between longtime Tuareg rebels and newcomer Salafist forces. The list of those guilty of this lack of objectivity is…everyone: the UN, the US, Europe, neighboring African states and even many people in southern Mali.

Before we examine the intentions of outsiders for Mali, let’s get the intractable question out of the way: What really is the plan for the Tuaregs, if they are defeated? They cannot be exterminated. What outside forces truly want is a return to the old status quo - have them live in poverty and roam the border areas in between the Sahara and West Africa. Keep them stateless, unhappy and no doubt planning their next secessionist war - that’s been the routine for a century.

The West has no problem marginalizing the Tuaregs. They push with democratic secessionist votes when it suits their interests, like in South Sudan, but promoting a democratic vote in Mali instead of a military intervention? Never going to happen, because the West wouldn’t get the result they want.

Don’t look to Africa for much help. The African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) may be backed by the UN, but Mali shows how regional balance-of-power dynamics can create situations in which local leaders conspire with Western interests. Neither (southern) Mali, Algeria, Niger, Mauritania nor any of the Sahel region want to see the Tuareg ethnic group win their own state - Tuaregs are the Kurds of the Sahara.

Anti-interventionism doesn’t just mean opposing Western backed armies, anyway. Why would northern Malians welcome ECOWAS troops after their alleged behavior against locals in Sierra Leone and Liberia?

As long as Algeria (long the true determining factor with Mali’s Tuaregs) stays out of it, the majority of African troops will be from Ivory Coast. Anyone following events there recently knows a few things: Laurent Gbagbo refused to join the AFRICOM (US Africa Command) and in 2011, after a nearly split vote, French troops (excuse me, UN troops) protected and installed Alassane Ouattara, one of Nicolas Sarkozy’s closest personal friends. Gbagbo had the gall to demand a recount and is awaiting trial at the Hague.

Why should we believe that a regional African force is somehow better than a western force - they are the same, and it is still outside intervention!

But for now, the secessionist movement doesn’t have to worry about neighboring states getting immediately involved in a “Malistan”, as West Africa will wait and see what US drones and French troops (sorry again, I mean UN troops) can do to soften things up. Like much of the world, Mali’s boundaries were drawn haphazardly and these states are not genuine, and Mali shows that many current African leaders want to keep profiting from the status quo.

When people say that Mali can’t handle the current situation what they really mean is leadership in Bamako - in the southern Mali delta - can’t handle it. Let’s remember that the Malian army staged a coup in March because Tuareg rebels had already taken over chunks of the north at a rapid pace. The Islamists rode in on Tuareg coattails - of that there is no doubt - but we must stress that resistance to their carpet-bagging is already in evidence.

In the face of Salafist zeal, protests have occurred in Timbuktu and Gao against the comparatively tiny number of Islamic radicals who are trying to overturn customary habits. But while fundamentalists have been destroying radios, the secessionists are trying to win over a population that was long-ignored by Bamako, with free electricity and lower food prices caused by no taxation.


The Tuaregs aren’t fighting a mere cultural war - hopefully getting their bunkers ready for the drone attacks soon to come.

The confusion in Bamako helps the Tuaregs: The longer northern Mali can try and solve its own problems, the better it is for the legitimate secessionists because the Islamic radicals have no long-term viability, no real chance to create a better state for an impoverished people, regardless of ethnicity.

And this is why the West feels they must strike now, before Northern Mali gets a chance to boot out the radicals by themselves. The question is will Mali be like Egypt and Tunisia - free to decide their own future without outside interference - or will it go the way of Libya, which has a Western-backed puppet government.



“But Mali was the poster child for democracy in Africa,” people say. “They had a democratically-elected president!” No, they had a western puppet that fled to France, Mali’s former colonial master, when the army reflected the widespread discontent and booted out Amadou Toumani Touré. His record speaks for itself: Mali has a per capita income of less of than $1 a day, average lifespan of 48 percent, illiteracy at 81 percent and 33 percent with no access to drinking water. It’s no wonder he got reelected - what a great democracy!

The irony of all this is that the destabilization of Mali was initially sparked by France’s illegal weapons drops to anti-Gaddafi forces. Guns flooded the region, just as everyone said they would, and here we are today.

Mali was already in France’s pocket, but many wonder if they purposely destabilized the Sahel with 40 tons of illegal weapons? Libya is a far richer prize for France, so it’s more likely that they just did not care what happened in Mali, and why should they? They can clean up any secondary mess they make in the Sahara - it’s not a region the world cares about. France profits from making war, from reconstruction - the odds that a genuine “West African Spring” arises to stop them are slim.

And imperialism always pays, even in the seemingly desolate Sahara. No part of the globe is without its riches: northern Mali has a host of vital raw materials, including iron, gold, uranium (hugely important to the global nuclear power leader, France) and possibly large oil reserves.


But these “Springs” do happen. Maybe we aren’t seeing a “Franceafrique Spring” right now, but history could look back and say that we are currently in the midst of a long-awaited Tuareg revival.

The portrayal of western leaders - that Mali is in a black-and-white situation where people are oppressed by Islamic radicals - is self-serving exaggeration. Few are saying it but it’s quite simple: Northern Mali needs diplomatic efforts, not western military intervention. Nor does it need military intervention from ECOWAS - it needs long, difficult and very unprofitable diplomacy.

Source: Islam Times