HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » UN approves Mali military...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:54 AM

 

UN approves Mali military intervention

Source: Al Jazeera

The UN Security Council has unanimously approved plans for an African-led military intervention in Mali aimed at reunifying the embattled North African state.

The resolution, approved in New York on Thursday afternoon, calls for political reconciliation, elections and the training of the country's security forces before any operation is launched to reclaim Mali's northern areas.

West African nations want to send a 3,300-strong force to oust armed groups that moved into the vast desert area and rolled out strict Islamic law after a military coup in Bamako in March created a power vacuum in the country.

When President Amadou Toumani Toure was forced from his position by a military cadre in mid-March, a coalition of the independence-seeking National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and the reportedly al-Qaeda-linked Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJWA) took advantage of political uncertainty to sweep across the northern region, capturing territory and towns including Gao and Timbuktu.

Read more: http://aje.me/T0VrVG

7 replies, 1414 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply UN approves Mali military intervention (Original post)
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 OP
Ash_F Dec 2012 #1
Alamuti Lotus Dec 2012 #3
Ash_F Dec 2012 #4
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #5
Ash_F Dec 2012 #6
Alamuti Lotus Dec 2012 #7
dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #2

Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:58 AM

1. What is the arguement for not partitioning the country?

North and South? This will most definitely lead to bloodshed. Is it necessary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:09 PM

3. gold and uranium mines in the north

 

And with those, the mujihadeen are unlikely to give the same sweetheart deals to Western business and banking interests as the kleptocracy in the south have and would. Therefore, people have to die. They (primarily France and the Obama gov't) tried to convince the Algerian army to do the heavy lifting (reference the sanctioned Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006 when the Islamic Courts Union drove the last pro-West warlords out of the capital), but they refused. So now they're pushing for this motley ECOWAS combined force, which may be just as likely to end up fighting each other as the Islamists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:24 PM

4. Didn't know about the mines, thanks.

Of course it would be something like that getting in the way of common sense, good faith negotiations and doing the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:44 PM

5. The AU, EU, and UN all seem to think so

I expect we'll get another "herp derp yankee imperialist" kneejerk out of the whole thing, but the situation in Mali is awful, regional countries have been agitating to do something about it within the bounds of international law for well over a year now, and the UN traditionally is not a fan of allowing borders to be redrawn because someone conquers a stretch of land because it was in fact established to try and minimize that sort of thing in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:34 PM

6. The Tuareg people have been in that region since before the 15th century

It is their homeland. The French were the ones who conquered it during the scramble for Africa and drew the borders as they are today. Too bad the UN wasn't around then.

If the cultural and linguistic lines remain that stark, even after French colonialism, and enmity is still so severe, it may be better to set the borders to back before that era. Especially when national resources are at stake, which can better serve to improve the lives of the people who actually live on the land, rather than foreign billionaires from the other side of the sea.

I am concerned with understanding the situation. Not blindly agreeing with UN votes, which we know are often bullied into being by the more powerful nations such as the US and France.

PS - That's really not an argument. "Because the US and France say so". If there is a real argument, I am interested in hearing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:35 PM

7. How nice it must be...

 

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

to just be able to dismiss what is bright and clear in front of us as just ""herp derp yankee imperialist kneejerk" (whatever that's supposed to mean)!!

Why do you suppose it is awful--was it wonderful on the day before the coup toppled Amadau by the American-trained Captain? Clearly not, the north wouldn't have been lost practically overnight if it was (*). Regional countries (largely military pseudo-dictatorships serving the interests of foreign and domesic business elites) may be agitating to do something, but what is "within the bounds of international law" really mean? Such laws are largely designed to defend the status quo (which is usually something awful), and you know what that must mean in that region (reference the parenthetical above if you don't). Redrawn borders may be a spiky issue for the UN, but spikier still is the origin of many of these borders. Is it just "herp derp yankee imperialist kneejerk" (again, whatever that was supposed to mean(**)) to acknowledge that most of them were drawn by the retreating imperialist powers to engender future conflicts in the first place?

It is true that these various acronym unions (--a bland appeal to authority?--) do seem to be breathing together at the moment--what is the latin for that? Oops, opening myself up to another overused cliche there. At times like this, the UN is a rubberstamp fig-leaf for the interests of dominant powers. What is interesting, however, is the lack of zeal or optimism any of them really has for the idea. The resolution may have been watered down just to pass, but it really projects the weakness of its instigators. The French want their investments and regional control secured, but nobody seems really too willing to die to achieve that for them. That cloak of "humanitarian intervention" that is dragged out so often these days is wearing a little too ragged to properly conceal the same intentions that always lay beneath these campaigns, attempt to condescendingly dismiss it however you wish.


(*)--there is also the matter of heavy weapons smuggled out of the NATO Republic of Libya, but that's one of many factors
(**)--perhaps this phrase should be re-written: "those who quite knowingly created problems in the first place feel themselves to be best positioned for 'fixing' them, all the while stealing for themselves the benefits afterwards"? Nah, too wordy and is a little too close to how things really are, better to have some euphemistic smokescreen instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:59 AM

2. That is a late link - happened yesterday.

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Aside from that there are wheel within wheels turning here. All farmland was sequestered by their government for use as sugar plantations - the sugar to be used almost solely for the production of ethanol. Mali itself need ethanol about as much as a snake needs a bowtie - its all for export to the west.

A side issue with the loss of private farmland is mandatory stripping the land of all trees. Generally speaking the sole occupation of Malian women is/was the production of shea butter.

So - piss off more or less the entire population and who do they turn too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread