You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Mali’ tag.
Almost a year ago, I wrote a rather nasty article about today’s socialist parties. At times, I looked back with a little regret. I’ve got friends in the NDP, and like most, the party tends to fall into the “best of a bad bunch” category. The trends I described, however, were real, and have reached disgusting new depths. And so, it is with a heavy heart that I must again lambaste their leaders, a group who might as well now be known as the ‘far right of the left wing’.
The story of the French “Left” and the Algerian war for independence is something of a historical black eye, to the point where Socialist President Guy Mollet’s visit to Algiers in 1956 is still known as “la journee des tomates” for the hail of rotten fruit he had to endure. Despite some misgivings, French control of Algeria was seen as a necessary precondition of any “socialism” there, and so Mollet (with communist support) opted for a troop surge and widespread use of torture. In the end, this exceptionally brutal war cost them not only control of Algeria (and soon, many others), but also their government (the “Fourth Republic”) itself. There were, of course, a few dissenters – names you might know like John-Paul Sartre, Guy DeBoard and, of course, French anarchists of the time such as Daniel Guerin. For the most part, though, the self-interest of leftist parliamentarians kept them from any Support for this appalling war wasn’t just a betrayal of their “principles” or a horrible strategic choices, it put them squarely “on the wrong side of history”, and both the French left and Algerian population suffered dearly.
Of course, they talk of Algeria, but moderately. In order not to lose face the press growls a little. But it is understood that there shall be no agitation. . . The effect on the working-class — and this is, perhaps, the aim of this policy — is to demobilise it completely. Nothing like the Marseilles dockers strikes or the demonstrations for the release of Henri Martin have developed. The workers are disgusted with the Algerian war but they have been left without guidance or direction. The [Communist Party] is reaping what it has sown — when it needs the masses it no longer finds then) . . . Meanwhile 500,000 young men waste their time, if not their health or their lives in Algeria, the economy stagnates and workers goon short time. And this is the result of this Ballet of the Left, with one partner waltzing smartly off to the right in order to avoid the embrace of the other . . .
- John Paul Sartre (from “Is This The Time“, a critique of Socialist and Stalinist Imperialism)
One might think today’s French socialists would be a little hesitant to try such a thing. Alas, they’re not.
Faced with sagging approval ratings and a lacklustre term so far, France’s new “Socialist” president, Francios Hollande, did something any (dis)respectable politician would do. He started a war. Launching air-strikes and a ground invasion of Mali at the invitation of a government openly run by generals, his government is now doing battle with one of only fifteen countries listed lower than Afghanistan on the UN Human Development Index.
Can we stop calling them “freedom fries” now?
The French socialists, of course, are not alone on the left in their support for this war. Canada’s (still ostensibly socialist) NDP recently sided with Harper on support for the French war effort through, which now apparently includes special forces. This has allowed Harper to talk of a “broad national consensus”, which he states will be necessary if we’re to expand our involvement. This is exactly why I warned about Thomas Mulcair last year. Unlike his predecessor Jack Layton, who routinely questioned Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, Mulcair is using the party’s newly found clout as Official Opposition to welcome the war, thus avoiding any unpleasant parliamentary criticism.
If there’s one conclusion which can be reached from the examples above, it’s that opposition to this kind of militarism tends to fade as these parties get closer to power. It’s a lesson we’ve learned too many times from parties of all colours, only to continue hoping that next time, things will be different. These are necessary sacrifices, we’re told, if the party is to survive and thrive. What few stop to ask is: what good is a party that can’t or won’t stand by their principles if ever they should actually find themselves in a position to make the changes they talk about?
A politician is a politician is a politician, I suppose. And they wonder why people are so cynical…
This kind of thing almost never goes unnoticed. “Left” or “right”, everybody loves to hate hypocrites. Anybody who was previously irked by the moralistic tone is going to seize the opportunity to single it out, as will anybody who previously agreed. Both the National Post and Socialist Worker seem to be taking particular delight on in the domestic politics behind this war. Beyond the sectarian warfare, though, is the effect on those who aren’t hardened warriors in those battles. For most, the entire affair is just one more reason to avoid politics altogether. If this was only a problem for “politicians” I wouldn’t have much problem with it, but as these parties bring a lot of radical imagery into their marketing campaigns, they tend to cast a lot of suspicion on grassroots organizers as well. This is what Sartre means when he talks about completely demobilizing the working class.
Politics needs to be more than a fashion statement on behalf of groups vying for power. If the ideas put forward by parties are no less superficial than the colours and mascots of football teams, then why bother ‘getting off the couch’ at all? Many people, if not most, already feel this way about “politics” in general, and that’s a big part of the reason Canadians and Americans are so famously disinterested. At what point do we stop shaming people for being “apathetic” and “ignorant”, and admit that their feelings aren’t exactly baseless.
In the face of the biggest upsurge of “leftist” beliefs since the 1960s, the “parliamentary left” is instead taking a hard turn right. While this gives me a lot of hope for the future of social movements, it doesn’t exactly encourage me to vote. Attempting to get ahead in a battle of ideas by becoming more like those you oppose may win a few supporters in the short run, but over the longer term it starts to resemble surrender. I must admit, this leaves me confused – why join a socialist party if you honestly don’t think “the masses” have any appetite for socialist ideals?
It’s hard to know how “the masses” would react if confronted with a clear, honest and concise explanation of “socialism”. It’s been so long since anybody’s had the guts to say such a thing publicly that it’s hard to guess. One poll last year found “socialism” with triple the approval rating of Congress. Another poll in 2010 found that 42% of Americans thought the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” was taken from the Bill of Rights or other founding documents. Keep in mind, that’s America. We may never know how such an election would go, since these positions just aren’t being articulated by anybody who might conceivably win an election. Then again, given the history of states which actually attempted “socialism”, that might be just as well. Either way, I’m not holding out a lot of hope for parliamentary activism.
Last weekend on the streets of Toronto I saw what might be the largest demonstration I’ve attended since Quebec City in 2001, and it was only one of a great many in the few weeks alone. With or without politicians, the revolution is going ahead. The incredible and unprecedented wave of demonstrations which has swept the globe over the last few years has been almost entirely disconnected from traditional parties, and it’s not hard to see why. Just as Obama crushed our hopes that Democrats might be less interested in dropping bombs on Muslims, Hollande and Mulcair are showing that “socialist” politicians can be just as big a disappointment. Thankfully, as Bookchin reminds us, there’s a lot more to politics than statecraft.
Ok, I’ll admit it. “We” are not invading Mali. I’m not. I should hope anybody who reads this blog isn’t. Our countries, as Canadians, Americans, British and French citizens, are. At least in a support role. So while I have no particular love or allegiance for our government nor it’s imperial misadventures, I can’t exactly pretend I’m not involved. As the people of aggressive “peacekeepers” such as Canada, it’s our job to make these distinctions.
Every time I see, hear or read about this new war in Mali I find myself getting incredibly depressed and discouraged. For all the nightmarish horrors of neocolonialism, I would have liked to believe that another outright military conquest of Africa by Europe was out out of the question. As western forces now do battle with Muslims in the eighth country in four years and our leaders start once-again using bush-style, war-without-end rhetoric, it’s starting to look like “the dark continent” is once again in the crosshairs.
Understanding the conflict in Mali requires a little more context than it’s been given in most of our papers. Mali is a former French colony win West Africa, named after the Empire of Mali which held power in the region staring around a thousand years ago. After gaining independence in 1960, it was run as a one-party state (first socialist, then military) until 1991, when a mass-movement forced the dictator to hand power over to a multi-party democracy. It’s enjoyed decades of good relations with the West, since the days of the military dictatorship (and it’s IMF collusion), and until recently was seen as fairly stable by regional standards.
Serious trouble started about a year ago when a rebellion broke in the north, largely among the Tuareg, the area’s traditionally nomadic indigenous peoples. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (NMLA), a secular army demanding national autonomy, took over a number of towns and cities including Timbuktu and declared autonomy for the Azawad (“northern Mali”). This rebellion was joined by Islamic insurgents Ansar Dine, but fighting soon broke out between them and the MNLA was routed (they’ve since offered to join the French campaign). Both sides got a tremendous boost as fighters returned from Libya, bringing fresh NATO weapons and battlefield experience with them, as well as a growing sense of solidarity with other rebellions in the region.
Captain Amadou Sanogo
While the army battled for control of the north, another threat appeared in the South. Frustrated by the administration’s lack of progress against insurgents, a military coup led by Captain Amadou Sanogo deposed President Amadou Toumani Touré and suspended the constitution last March. This seriously inflamed the situation, leading to an international condemnation from both inside Africa and out, as well as a total loss of control over the north. In response, a “transitional” President, Dioncounda Traore, was sworn in and a civillian Prime Minister, Cheick Modibo Diarra, appointed. This didn’t change much – at one point “pro-Sanogo youth” forced their way into the president’s office and beat him so badly he needed a medical evacuation to France. Months later, in December, Diarra was forced from power by a group of soldiers acting on Sonogo’s orders, replacing him with the country’s latest leader, Django Sissoko.
This is the quagmire that French troops are walking into.
That France is taking the lead with this intervention is telling. The UN Security Council did pass a resolution late in December (you can read it here), but it doesn’t even mention France. Instead it authorizes an African-led force, under the supervision of the security council, to assist local authorities in restoring order, but also calls for the restoration of democracy and negotiations with rebels (days ago Ansar Dine reportedly split, with a faction seeking to negotiate). The French justification centres around requests from the Malian “government” for assistance, but it isn’t hard to see why some might doubt the “legitimacy” of their authority. Given the multiple threats and condemnations in this resolution directed toward Sonogo, I certainly do.
Law of Unintended Consequences
The colonial tone of this intervention is of not going unnoticed. Given the horrific legacy of slavery, imperialism and neo-colonialism, this was bound to inflame tensions across the region, and it has. The first response was an attack on a natural gas facility in Algeria which killed dozens, now reports are coming in of a 23 more killed in attacks around north-eastern Nigeria. As we’ve already seen far too many times with the War on Terrorism, the indignation caused by western intervention is more than capable of replacing every insurgent it kills.
Algeria harbours a frightening history of its own (extremely bloody) fight for independence from France, and more recent Islamic insurgencies. These later conflicts literally exploded in the 1990s after the government cancelled elections Islamists were expected to win and are said to have received substantial help from former Mujahideen fighters who’d fought (with CIA help) in the Afghan/Soviet war. Nigeria, a former British colony which has spent most of the time since its independence under various military juntas, has seen increasing unrest over the past two decades, largely in opposition to oil extraction which has taken a horrendous toll on the area’s environment. Initially taking the form of mass, nonviolent actions, Nigeria caught the world’s attention when Ken Saro-Wiwa and other leaders hung on false charges with suspicious connections to Shell Oil. In the years that followed, disillusionment lead to armed resistance through the Movement to Emancipate the Niger Delta (MEND), often attacking at foreign oil companies and kidnapping workers. In recent years, they’ve been joined in the conflict by Islamists Boko Haram, who are believed to be behind the recent attacks.
Islam…
Since every one of these conflicts involves Islamic militants of one form or another, I should be clear about what I mean (and what I don’t). Unlike our leaders or the press, I do not mean to equate any or all Muslims who bear arms or resist governments. Not only would that be appallingly racist, but it would also be totally inaccurate. There are well over a billion Muslims on earth, so it’s hard to imagine that they wouldn’t be involved in a few rebellions. There are certainly groups with abysmal theocratic aims who employ horrific tactics, but so does every other race and religion, and that’s the context they need to be seen in – they’re just like any other fascists. It needs to be noted that 90% of Mali’s population are followers of Islam, and most want nothing to do with Ansar Dine.
Islamophobia isn’t just a crass and obnoxious prejudice, it’s an important part of the ideology of modern warmongering. With Mali, we can see how the (perceived) threat of an Islamic insurrection (or worse, a state!) seemingly justifies any break with international law or UN resolutions. We saw it in Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine and so many others. “Islamic terrorism” is considered so dangerous it must be faced by subverting elections, arming rival insurgents/paramilitaries/tyrants, “pre-emptive” invasions, torture and a global campaign of drone bombings. The mythology behind this, like most racist fantasies, suggests a vast conspiracy interconnecting Muslims around the globe, tying together every nasty thing done by any Muslim anywhere. With this twisted logic, a “foothold” anywhere could lead to a new barrage of attacks everywhere. It’s essentially a 21st century version of the “Domino Theory“, and it’s just as fanciful as the last.
The problem with such racist reasoning isn’t just that it totally ignores the context of any violence that happens, replacing it with cartoonish stereotypes. If this were simply a matter of never, ever believing that any follower of Islam could have a legitimate reason to take up arms, it would at least be consistent. Unfortunately, geopolitics isn’t so simple and there are some situations in which even the Pentagon feels they do. The Afghan-Soviet War is the obvious example, but there are others – the Kosovo Liberation Army, for instance, had Al Qaeda links. So did many of “our rebel allies” in Libya and Syria. Mali’s crisis, as mentioned above, traces right back to Libya, where both Tuareg and Islamist fighters acquired much of their weapons and battlefield experience.
The two-faced strategy practiced by western leaders against “terrorism” has failed twice. First, because of the willingness to embrace “Islamic fundamentalism” when it suits them, which played a large role in creating the modern Jihadi movement. Second, by then over-reacting to the threat and lashing out at entire nations, they galvanized the support base by proving what nasty imperialists they could be. Putting Al Qaeda in the crosshairs for this global war legitimized them in ways they could never have accomplished otherwise, and 12 years later “terrorism” is bigger than ever.
Mali’s Gold
No article about the invasion of Mali would be complete without a picture of its resources, which betrays a slightly different agenda underlying this invasion. Gold-mining has been at the centre of Mali’s economy since the days of the old Empire. Currently it’s the third-largest producer of gold on the continent. The largely undeveloped north is thought to contain large reserves of metals like uranium (this region supplies much of France’s electricity) and possibly oil (Nigeria and Algeria both have considerable oil/gas reserves). Mining interests also explain some of why Canada is so eager to get involved, as there are more than fifteen Canadian mining firms currently active in Mali.
Gold might not have been the most important resource a few years ago, but thanks to a near-chronic fear of another financial collapse, many individuals and investors have started buying gold in the hopes it will hold it’s value. This has led gold prices to skyrocket, attracting speculators and fueling the rise. In recent weeks this trend has started to reverse, leaving many to wonder about it’s sustainability, but still fixate on it’s importance. With Africa (and often the poorest regions) supplying much of the world’s mineral and metal demands, this makes western-friendly governments (democratic or otherwise) a must.
History Repeats
They say those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Another “intervention” makes me wonder if we’ve learned anything from either the last decade or century. This invasion, like any other, will have long-reaching consequences which will go well beyond Mali’s borders. Even if the French-led forces capture northern Mali, they will never manage to contain all insurgents in the region. The legacies of poverty, repression and ecological destruction caused by debt, land grabs and foreign mining/drilling exploits have consequences of their own, providing a desperate and indignant recruiting ground for Al Qaeda and others. The rise of Islamic militants, like so many other problems the region faces, is deeply rooted in colonialism, and that’s not a problem more colonialism is going to fix.
There are no angels here, no devils, just people, and while I might sympathize with some groups (MEND) more than others (AQIM), I have to admit that it’s not actually any of my bloody British-descended business. Control over African political affairs needs to belong, once-again, to Africans, whatever I might think of their choices. Without understanding that principle, any attempt to “bring” democracy to the region is doomed from the outset. Until richer nations stop seeing invasions, military aid and “friendly” dictators as acceptable ways to influence affairs in poorer regions, this kind of chaos is going to continue. It’s high time to renounce the role of emperors and accept the status of allies, at least if we care at all for any of the people actually living through this nightmare.
