Argument: Western countries should not be interfering in African internal affairs

Western nations should clearly not be interfering in African affairs. Not only is this conflict outside of NATO’s remit but it is internal to an individual African state rather than a war between states. By intervening France and other nations are taking part in a civil war in which they are aiding a government that was placed in office by a military coup in March 2012 so does not have a democratic mandate. [1]

This intervention is an example of France once more playing the role of gendarme and considering that it has some kind of divine right to intervene in Africa. [2] This war is of course in large part France’s fault in the first place; it is trying to hold together a nation that should be split in two as a result of artificial colonial borders that fan conflict by dividing communities. [3] In this case France is intervening to deny a legitimate people’s, the Tuareg, their right to self-determination. The Tuaregs are divided between Algeria, Kibya, Mali, and Niger but without a majority in any. [4] The Turegs when they took control of Azawad made a declaration of independence. [5] While this has not been recognised this simply shows how existing states are worried about accepting the logic of self-determination when they themselves have groups that may want independence.

[1] Felix, Bate, ‘Mali junta sees civilian government “in days”’, Reuters, 8 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-mali-idUSBRE8350MO20120408

[2] Diop, Boubacar Boris, ‘La Vie en %$!’, Foreign Policy, July/August 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/la_vie_en

[3] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘African Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/28/africa_needs_a_new_map

[4] 10% in Mali ‘Mali’ The World Factbook, CIA, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ml.html 9.3% in Niger ‘Niger’, The World Factbook, CIA, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ng.html

[5] Fessy, Thomas, ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north’, BBC News, 6 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17635437

Candidate 1: "If terrorism is the concern then the French intervening is one of the worst possible options. Having France fighting in Mali may well result in the internationalization of the conflict bringing in jihadists. [1] Already the islamists are saying the conflict is a holy war as “France has attacked Islam” and they will in response “strike at the heart of France”. [2]

[1] Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Sending soldiers to Mali may be the only solution’, The Globe and Mail, 14 January 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/why-france-couldnt-wait-for-a-regional-solution-in-mali/article7318783/

[2] Bamat, Joseph, ‘Mali-based Islamists pledge attacks on French soil’, France 24, 14 January 2013, http://www.france24.com/en/20130114-mali-france-intervention-terrorist-attacks"
Candidate 2: "Ban Ki Moon has also stated that “I am profoundly aware that if a military intervention in the north is not well conceived and executed, it could worsen an already fragile humanitarian situation and also result in severe human rights abuses” [1] so French military intervention is not necessarily the right course to take if the intention is to be helping the people of northern Mali. Equally we can ask if this will really end the civil war? Mali has suffered from several Tuareg rebellions in the past. In particular there was a civil war between 1990 and 1996 [2] which has had over a decade of sporadic peace negotiations while a cease fire held. So while outside intervention may end the civil war unless the French propose to remain in place for decades or work instead on a diplomatic solution in the long run Mali will be no better off.

[1] Tisdall, Simon, ‘UN urges caution over military intervention in Mali’, guardian.co.uk, 29 November 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/un-caution-military-intervention-mali

[2] Humphreys, Macartan, and Mohamed, Habaye ag, ‘Senegal and Mali’, January 2003, http://www.columbia.edu/~mh2245/papers1/sen_mali.pdf pp.19-28"
Candidate 3: "Mali should be asking for diplomatic help to resolve the crisis not asking for a military force. France meanwhile should not be accepting a request from an unelected President to attack his own people. A request to intervene in a country does not make that intervention legitimate it simply provides a fig leaf to protect France from accusations of colonialism."
Candidate 4: "This is ignoring both that African nations are taking a leading role in this intervention and that it is them who have asked for intervention by western states.

First of All Nigeria is going to send 600 troops, Senegal, Burkina Faso, and Togo 500 each, and Benin 300. These numbers far outweigh the 550 being sent by France and logistical support provided by other countries such as the UK and US. [1] It can therefore be said that this is an African mission.

Secondly the resolution in December did call for “coordination with the European Union and other partners”. [2] ECOWAS had already in December called for the United Nations to intervene [3] and “thanks the French Government for its initiatives to support Mali.” [4]

[1] ‘Mali: France pledges ‘short’ campaign against Islamists’, BBC News, 14 January 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21007517

[2] Security Council 6898th meeting, ‘Security Council authorizes deployment of African-led international support mission in Mali for initial year-long period’, United Nations, Resolution 2085, 20 December 2012, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10870.doc.htm

[3] AP, ‘ECOWAS calls for UN-backed intervention to reclaim north’, France 24, 7 August 2012, http://www.france24.com/en/20120707-mali-ecowas-tuareg-al-qaeda-rebels

[4] Ouédraogo, Kadre Desiré, ‘Statement of the President of the ECOWAS Commission on the Situation in Mali’, Reliefweb, 12 January 2013, http://reliefweb.int/report/mali/statement-president-ecowas-commission-situation-mali"
Candidate 5: "Self-determination should first be internal rather than external. [1] In other words self-determination means autonomy within the existing state not a new state unless there is no other way of resolving the conflict. In Mali therefore the rebels need to put down their weapons and accept the authority of the central government, whose will the French and others are trying to enforce. It is clear that the people of northern Mali would prefer a solution within the state of Mali as half the population has fled to the south [2] and Ansar Dine and MNLA have walked back their declaration of independence promising “respect for Mali's national unity and territorial integrity” in December. [3]

[1] “Reference re Secession of Quebec”, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217, http://scc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr2-217/1998scr2-217.html

[2] Fessy, Thomas, ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north’, BBC News, 6 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17635437

[3] Agencies, ‘Mali rebels agree to respect ‘national unity’, AlJazeera, 5 December 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/12/201212420515159568.html"
Candidate 6: "This might be an excuse to send a few soldiers to help evacuation and possibly a commando raid to free hostages but it is not a reason for all out intervention. If it was such a justification then in almost any conflict some state would have just cause to intervene because some of their citizens were in danger."
Candidate 7: "The French have rejected any parallel with Afghanistan and other quagmires. Fabius, France’s Foreign Minister, has said that "Later on, we can come as back-up, but we have no intention of staying forever," [1] the handover may be slower than anticipated but there is no evidence the French will be in Mali for an extended period.

[1] ‘Mali: France pledges ‘short’ campaign against Islamists’, BBC News, 14 January 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21007517"

Self-determination should first be internal rather than external. [1] In other words self-determination means autonomy within the existing state not a new state unless there is no other way of resolving the conflict. In Mali therefore the rebels need to put down their weapons and accept the authority of the central government, whose will the French and others are trying to enforce. It is clear that the people of northern Mali would prefer a solution within the state of Mali as half the population has fled to the south [2] and Ansar Dine and MNLA have walked back their declaration of independence promising “respect for Mali's national unity and territorial integrity” in December. [3]

[1] “Reference re Secession of Quebec”, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217, http://scc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr2-217/1998scr2-217.html

[2] Fessy, Thomas, ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north’, BBC News, 6 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17635437

[3] Agencies, ‘Mali rebels agree to respect ‘national unity’, AlJazeera, 5 December 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/12/201212420515159568.html
