France acts to prevent extreme Islamic takeover of Mali

[Evie]

To a degree, but in this particular case it's a mild case of imperialism. And in my opinion some degree of imperialism is nearly unavoidable, because there will be stronger nations, and weaker nations, and the weak will seek to associate with the strong for protection and assistance, and the strong will want to get someting other than a fuzzy warm feeling for their assistance.

 

[r16]

bad_ss has an a in it

apologies , ı read whatever ı write at least 5 times but from Turkish to English can really cause that thing called lost in translation . ı was trying to say ı would avoid the use of two a letters in that word .

 

[Flying Pig]

To a degree, but in this particular case it's a mild case of imperialism. And in my opinion some degree of imperialism is nearly unavoidable, because there will be stronger nations, and weaker nations, and the weak will seek to associate with the strong for protection and assistance, and the strong will want to get someting other than a fuzzy warm feeling for their assistance.

I'm not sure that this inherently means 'imperialism': other nations can serve our interests without being under our authority. For example, shoring up a friendly government against a rebellion and then departing without strings attached in clearly in the national interest of the intervening power, but doesn't necessarily mean that said power will actually be exerting any authority over it, which is the definition of imperialism.

 

[Evie]

Well, it does mean that the intervening nation will have a degree of *influence* over the intervenee. Now whether having that sort of influence and friendship translates into imperialism...I can see the argument that it does, but if it does, as I say, it's a very mild form.

 

[Colonel]

Waiting for France to fail..... 3...... 2..... 1...... and Vietnam

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, it does mean that the intervening nation will have a degree of *influence* over the intervenee. Now whether having that sort of influence and friendship translates into imperialism...I can see the argument that it does, but if it does, as I say, it's a very mild form.

I think imperialism is a matter of authority - in other words, power, soft or hard; the ability to influence somebody's actions through sanctions or the threat of sanctions - which doesn't necessarily exist in a relationship of 'friendship', where the only 'power' of the stronger country over the weaker is a moral sense of obligation. To be imperialistic, this would need to be backed with something more concrete: maybe not the threat of military force, but sufficient economic reliance to provide leverage, which does not necessarily follow from this case.

 

[Evie]

Hmmmm, yes, I can see how that work. I can see the other point of view, too, but I actually lean a little more toward yours.

It depends how you define imperialism, really; one way or another, this is, so far, a fairly tame situation in terms of international relations. (It,s nothing like tame on the ground, of course, but that's war for you)

 

[Gatsby]

I'm not sure that this inherently means 'imperialism': other nations can serve our interests without being under our authority. For example, shoring up a friendly government against a rebellion and then departing without strings attached in clearly in the national interest of the intervening power, but doesn't necessarily mean that said power will actually be exerting any authority over it, which is the definition of imperialism.

Why are they shoring up that friendly government though? What is it in realpolitik terms that makes that government "friendly"? That argument would be much stronger if we were talking about a neigbouring country, but we're not: we're talking about a country that's 3000km away from France. Moreover, this country has historically been in France's colonial sphere of influence and it now shows promising signs of having untapped supplies of oil and uranium. France is heavily dependent on imports of both of these (France gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power).

This IS imperialism in action because France is trying to extend it power and influence through military force, and it is ultimately doing so for some very pragmatic reasons. Anyone who really believes that the French are in Mali because of some noble and sentimental desire to defend Freedom and Goodness is as deluded as those who believe that the US invaded Iraq in order to spread democracy. A smiling imperialist is still an imperialist. I have no doubt that the French would be backing the "Islamist" rebels like they did in Libya if they thought they could get more favourable (i.e. exploitative) trade arrangements from the rebels than the current regime.

 

[anandus]

Does anyone know of any rumours about peace talks between Mali and the Touareg-faction?
One of the ways out of this mess in the long run is granting the Touaregs a (semi-)autonomous region in the noortheast of Mali, I think?

Waiting for France to fail..... 3...... 2..... 1...... and Vietnam

I think France is leaving the Vietnam/Afghanistan part for the African troops.

 

[Flying Pig]

Why are they shoring up that friendly government though? What is it in realpolitik terms that makes that government "friendly"? That argument would be much stronger if we were talking about a neigbouring country, but we're not: we're talking about a country that's 3000km away from France. Moreover, this country has historically been in France's colonial sphere of influence and it now shows promising signs of having untapped supplies of oil and uranium. France is heavily dependent on imports of both of these (France gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power).

Understood; I'm not saying that France has no interest in Mali and is acting out of altruism - quite the reverse - but I am saying that France does not expect to extend its authority over Mali - that is, its ability to coercively influence the actions of the Malian government - through its intervention. In my cynical opinion, the overwhelming majority of 'altruistic' actions in international affairs can be attributed to self-interest, either of nations or of the politicians leading them.

This IS imperialism in action because France is trying to extend it power and influence through military force, and it is ultimately doing so for some very pragmatic reasons. Anyone who really believes that the French are in Mali because of some noble and sentimental desire to defend Freedom and Goodness is as deluded as those who believe that the US invaded Iraq in order to spread democracy. A smiling imperialist is still an imperialist.

You're confusing 'power' with 'influence'; the two are not the same. Power is the ability to use rewards and sanctions to influence a government's actions; the impression so far is that France's power over the Malian government will remain the same after the intervention as it did before it. Therefore the intervention is not imperialistic, which by definition involves seeking to extend power - for example, by imposing a military occupation which would be responsible for keeping order; this would allow the sanction of removing that occupying force and letting Mali drift into chaos, giving the French leverage. So far, the indications are that the French do not wish to do this; rather they seek to shore up a friendly government - which is in their own self-interest - and then get out.

I have no doubt that the French would be backing the "Islamist" rebels like they did in Libya if they thought they could get more favourable (i.e. exploitative) trade arrangements from the rebels than the current regime.

Perhaps, but if they didn't seek to gain power over that government, it would not be an imperialistic action - bonds of friendship and a moral debt do not make a power relationship.

 

[ace99]

Timbuktu has been taken. Goddamn Islamists.

GAO, Mali -- French and Malian troops on Monday sealed off Timbuktu, a UNESCO World Heritage site, but fleeing Islamist rebel fighters torched several buildings in the ancient Saharan trading town, including a library of priceless manuscripts.

Without a shot being fired to stop them, 1,000 French soldiers including paratroopers and 200 Malian troops seized the airport and surrounded the centuries-old Niger River city, looking to block the escape of al-Qaida-allied fighters.

The retaking of Timbuktu followed the swift capture by French and Malian forces at the weekend of Gao, another major northern Malian town which had also been occupied by the alliance of Islamist militant groups since last year.

A two-week intervention by France in its former Sahel colony, at the request of Mali's government but also with wide international backing, has driven the Islamist rebel fighters northwards out of towns into the desert and mountains.

A French military spokesman said the assault forces at Timbuktu were being careful to avoid combat inside the city so as not to damage cultural treasures and mosques and religious shrines in what is considered a seat of Islamic learning.

But Timbuktu's mayor, Ousmane Halle, reported that fleeing Islamist fighters had torched a South African-funded library in the city containing thousands of priceless manuscripts.

Nic Bothma / EPA

A French soldier in Mali on Sunday.

"The rebels set fire to the newly constructed Ahmed Baba Institute built by the South Africans ... this happened four days ago," Halle Ousmane told Reuters by telephone from Bamako. He said he had received the information from his chief of communications who had traveled south from the city a day ago.

Ousmane was not able to immediately say how much the concrete building had been damaged. He added the rebels also torched his office and the home of a member of parliament.

The Ahmed Baba Institute, one of several libraries and collections in the city containing fragile ancient documents dating back to the 13th century, is named after a Timbuktu-born contemporary of William Shakespeare and houses more than 20,000 scholarly manuscripts. Some were stored in underground vaults.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...ff-timbuktu-rebels-torch-ancient-library?lite

 

[Tee Kay]

Inb4 blaming the French

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Oh god why destroy such things....WHY?!?

 

[imperialman]

http://globaldefenceanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/uk-troops-will-be-sent-to-mali/

Hundreds of British troops could be deployed to Africa under plans being considered by ministers, as the former head of the Army warns forces face “protracted guerilla warfare” in Mali against rebels.

The Government is sending scores of troops to assist France in its conflict with Al Qaeda militants in the North African country.

All the troops will perform non-combat roles.

As part of the UK’s commitment, up to 40 troops are being offered as part of an EU training mission in Mali to provide a “support role”.

Up to 200 soldiers will also be offered for training in other parts of Africa.

David Cameron told French President Francois Hollande at the weekend that Britain is “keen” to help Paris with its military operation to oust Islamist militants in northern Mali.

The Prime Minister has said the UK is ready to offer logistical, intelligence and surveillance help to France but has ruled out a combat role for British personnel.

The RAF has already provided two heavy-lift C-17 transport planes and a Sentinel surveillance aircraft to assist France’s operation, involving 90 military personnel.

Downing Street said that “discussions are ongoing” about how many troops to send to Africa.

 

[HannibalBarka]

I am French and come from the part of Africa that is just north of this region. I think France have done the right thing here (as I think it did the right thing in Libya a couple of month ago).
Mali has been in trouble in the last couple of months and suffered a military coup which (with the fall of Gaddafi and the spread of a lot of weapons and mercenaries and troubles) made easier for the Tuareg rebels, allied with Al Qaida affiliated jihadist, to secede from the central Mali state.
Tuareg than have been overrun by the Jihadists. They’re all Muslims, but that is not enough to say. All Muslims are not alike, contrary to what many people think. Islam in that region is not the same as the Wahhabi one preached by the Jihadists, and the difference is not light. People in northern Mali do not want “Saint places” to be destroyed or hands to be shopped like the Jihadists do. Many people in say France are Catholics but that does not follow that they’ll accept a harsh and strict application of what some hardliner Catholic think and they may support an infidel to support them get rid of the Fundies. Maliens seem to have made the same choice. The intervention is supported by all surrounding countries (bar Algeria in the beginning because it did not want to see the troubles move north and also because it DOES indeed see every French intervention in its “sphere of influence” or at least neighbourhood very suspiciously). TVs have been showing people welcoming French and Malien troops are “liberators”. All this makes me think the intervention has a strong local support.
Now are French incentives purely humanist? No not really, why should they be? De Gaulle once said “States do not have friends, only interests” and he was right, at least partially. France intervened in Mali because it was in its interest and because it was also in the interest of Mali and the region. France wouldn’t have done it if both conditions weren’t filled.

Is it a kind of "imperialistic"? Yes maybe, but so is US presence in Europe or even the very existence of NATO.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I was watching CNN, and they were entering Goa on a french tank people were following them on motorcycles and chanting "Viva La France". They then interviewed a few people, then the crowd pulled out beers and started drinking. Also the women started complaining how they tried to ban traditional African clothing (Dress from the shoulders down and just a small cloth to tie hair) and enforce the full veil. The reaction of the liberated locals so far is really good, there probably wont be insurgence on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Neomega]

there probably wont be insurgence on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Because you saw some footage of happy people, you believe this?

TVs have been showing people welcoming French and Malien troops are “liberators”. All this makes me think the intervention has a strong local support.

Any proof besides what France wants you to see? Oh, it's on T.V. and anecdotal footage of happy people means a happy country. Like Iraq, where they replaced the American flag with an Iraqi one over the face of Saddam's statue.

Any polls that include the Tuaregs? Any polls at all?

 

[Gatsby]

Is it a kind of "imperialistic"? Yes maybe, but so is US presence in Europe or even the very existence of NATO.

Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree. Let's just not pretend that the French are fundamentally any better in this respect.

 

[anandus]

Oh god why destroy such things....WHY?!?

It's called religion

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Because you saw some footage of happy people, you believe this?

Any proof besides what France wants you to see? Oh, it's on T.V. and anecdotal footage of happy people means a happy country. Like Iraq, where they replaced the American flag with an Iraqi one over the face of Saddam's statue.

Any polls that include the Tuaregs? Any polls at all?

Not just happy people, but people chanting Viva La France. Do you really think it would be good for a radical rebel force linked with Al Qaeda to take control of a part of Africa that in general is rather moderate in terms of religion and to implement such laws as women cant ride motorcycles or traditional african clothes? If you do then seriously I dont see how we can have a rational conversation.