• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

France intervenes in Mali

Status
Not open for further replies.
The illegitimacy of the government is based in the following list of undermining factors:

1. The coup was led by a selection of young military officers who not only deposed the government, but arrested and gaoled the generals. This was not only a coup but a mutiny. The mutiny has not been rectified; those junior officers remain in power over the military. The military holds the strings here, they have the monopoly on violence, and those responsible for the coup have only stepped back from public responsibility for the power they hold.

2. The President was forced to flee the country and was then replaced with someone (following ECOWAS pressure) who the military had flex with. This flex resided in the fact that they led a mob to his office and hospitalised him through a brutal beating. This pressure, the threat of violence, was accompanied by the military defeat and torture of the Presidential guard, which was formerly the only thing standing between the President and the military. That threat has not gone away.

3. The former Prime Minister, when he looked to act independently of the military, was kidnapped and threatened until he resigned publicly, not stating a reason. His replacement was appointed by the military.

4. The most central player who shaped the makeup of the cabinet was Sanogo, who appointed men loyal to him in position related to defence and security. The military is still in control of key institutions in the country, something that ECOWAS has flagged as an immense problem.

5. The previous government was famed for its corruption, with politicians living lives far in excess of their salaries. This is one of the factors that led to the coup, with the young officers wanting a piece of the pie.

All of these factors, were they in a country without an ideological imperative towards painting the country as democratic in order to justify intervention, would represent to any person of sound mind a fundamental indication that the government was not legitimate. ECOWAS has repeatedly called for Sanogo to step back from his influence on politics, calling for elections at multiple occasions, calls that have been ignored.

Now if ECOWAS doesn't view the government as legitimate, I find that individuals accusing me of trumping up the illegitimacy of the government for my own ideological ends fall a bit flat. This may be an appeal to authority but over the last few weeks I have been reading a huge volume of literature on the subject, none of them use the kind of language that people here use to describe the government. It is a given that the military is in de facto control of the South.

Now, Mael, if the above factors were in play in my country, could you look me in the eye and tell me that you viewed your government as being legitimate? Simplet, could you?

I'll be frank the subject is of little interest to me in the 1rst place, so you won't see me long here.
I won't argue that the coup was legitimate (although if it was to remove a "corrupt" government legitimacy can be lent here as it is always the case when a coup succeed).
I'd argue however that if the status of the constitution are followed and the current government got to its positions through a strict adherence to it there's no arguing the legitimacy or you're arguing that the constitution ITSELF is without value (just so that we're clear to me there's no arguing that the constitution absolutely trumps sharia law as far as legitimacy goes for obvious reasons).
We won't even discuss the rebels here as they're not trying to put back the elected officials but want to take the country for themselves anyway, this has as much legitimacy as nigeria claiming the land.
I'm not arguing that the situation is ideal and that birds were singing the praise of the officials and everything was all and well.
I'm saying that if the law state that if anything happen to the president another elected official take its place, that alone doesn't make the new official illegitimate and a rebellion by armed forces looking to basically destroy the country and its constitution is a better solution.
The new official being taken for president is not illegitimate, him being pressured is another thing entirely.
 
So basically what OS is saying is both sides are evil, but, allowing them to remain in balance would be the best thing to do and prevent the extremists of both sides from murdering civilians? Makes sense, i guess.
 
So basically what OS is saying is both sides are evil, but, allowing them to remain in balance would be the best thing to do and prevent the extremists of both sides from murdering civilians? Makes sense, i guess.

IDK , if one side is really with Islamsits group like AQMI I'd prefer to have them routed out of the country or that we simply bar any national from enterting the EU.
 
The need for people to find 'good guys' and 'bad guys' or even 'less bad' guys. It didn't work in Syria and won't work in Mali.

Reducing conflicts to absurdly simple caricatures and then building a view of the whole thing from it is also incredibly dumb.

"Which side are more Islamic? Ok they R the bad ones and the others are chmapions of freedum!"

It's always more complicated than that. And it's seriously incredibly weird to see the Sanogo regime being lauded as legitimate in anyway other than by right of the strongman. It's a junta.
 
The need for people to find 'good guys' and 'bad guys' or even 'less bad' guys. It didn't work in Syria and won't work in Mali.

Reducing conflicts to absurdly simple caricatures and then building a view of the whole thing from it is also incredibly dumb.

"Which side are more Islamic? Ok they R the bad ones and the others are chmapions of freedum!"

It's always more complicated than that. And it's seriously incredibly weird to see the Sanogo regime being lauded as legitimate in anyway other than by right of the strongman. It's a junta.

As I said before it's not exactly on my radar, any side that doesn't make the country in a terrorist base for AQMI can do whatever the hell they want for all I care.
We already have enough anti terrorist laws thank you very much.
 
As I said before it's not exactly on my radar, any side that doesn't make the country in a terrorist base for AQMI can do whatever the hell they want for all I care.
We already have enough anti terrorist laws thank you very much.

That's fair enough. The frustration on my side is that the only way long term to keep AlQaeda a likes at bay is nation building, not taking sides in a civil war with a Call of Duty like "KILLING THE BAD GUYS FUCK YEAH" strategy like we did in Afghanistan and now by proxy in Syria.
 
That's fair enough. The frustration on my side is that the only way long term to keep AlQaeda a likes at bay is nation building, not taking sides in a civil war with a Call of Duty like "KILLING THE BAD GUYS FUCK YEAH" strategy like we did in Afghanistan and now by proxy in Syria.

I'm very much for this, actually I wouldn't be happier if this happened.
The implication for AQMI to get in Mali is absolutely scary though and there's only 1 way it'll go in the end.
I mean they weren't shy in targeting French assets so I doubt they'll pass up such a door to target French soil directly and that lead to what we were in the 90's and you'll see we'll devise new laws that'll make them way too hard to operate here while making the Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights.
 
I'll be frank the subject is of little interest to me in the 1rst place, so you won't see me long here.

I'd argue however that if the status of the constitution are followed and the current government got to its positions through a strict adherence to it there's no arguing the legitimacy or you're arguing that the constitution ITSELF is without value (just so that we're clear to me there's no arguing that the constitution absolutely trumps sharia law as far as legitimacy goes for obvious reasons).
In the American system, there is a chain of command if a disaster occurs, for who will step up into executive control.

Now imagine that number 40 on the list got all 39 together in the same room, then killed them. Would the government still be legitimate? Legally the system would be intact (other factors aside) but it would not be a legitimate government.

Similarly, if number 40 was in the pocket of the military, and the military drove off all the others through intimidation and violence, then there is little difference between the two situations.
I'm saying that if the law state that if anything happen to the president another elected official take its place, that alone doesn't make the new official illegitimate and a rebellion by armed forces looking to basically destroy the country and its constitution is a better solution.
The new official being taken for president is not illegitimate, him being pressured is another thing entirely.
Though foundations of the illegitimacy of the government are the factors previously mentioned. I have not presented the rebellion as a solution to the problems in Southern Mali.

My fundamental objection was to the characterisation of the intervention as being on behalf of a democratic state, done to restore their borders. I feel that I have shown that this is clearly not the motivation, nor the reality of what is going on there.
So basically what OS is saying is both sides are evil, but, allowing them to remain in balance would be the best thing to do and prevent the extremists of both sides from murdering civilians? Makes sense, i guess.
I wouldn't characterise it in those terms exactly.

The balance I am referring to is more about addressing what it is that makes Mali fundamentally an unstable nation state.

As I said before it's not exactly on my radar, any side that doesn't make the country in a terrorist base for AQMI can do whatever the hell they want for all I care.
If anything the current intervention will increase the power of AQMI, it will certainly give them a recruitment boost. Unlike Ansar Dine they aren't based in Mali, they can just pack up and go to Libya or Southern Algeria or Niger.
 
In the American system, there is a chain of command if a disaster occurs, for who will step up into executive control.

Now imagine that number 40 on the list got all 39 together in the same room, then killed them. Would the government still be legitimate? Legally the system would be intact (other factors aside) but it would not be a legitimate government.

Similarly, if number 40 was in the pocket of the military, and the military drove off all the others through intimidation and violence, then there is little difference between the two situations.

It's like in basically all modern democracies, number 40 will still be viable and legitimate as long as there's election close by.
Let's not act like #1 is not biased toward a specific special interest group (and if you're not part of them you're SOL).
It's still miles ahead people just taking arms and shitting on the country flag so to speak.

Though foundations of the illegitimacy of the government are the factors previously mentioned. I have not presented the rebellion as a solution to the problems in Southern Mali.

Then our positions are closer than the argument would let on.
As far as I'm concerned, elections need to happen ASAP (when the rebellion ends basically).

My fundamental objection was to the characterisation of the intervention as being on behalf of a democratic state, done to restore their borders. I feel that I have shown that this is clearly not the motivation, nor the reality of what is going on there.

It's done to restore the borders of the state, democratic or not.
The country has deep ties to my country and as such a part of the population will not exactly sit idly by to get cut of family when the country basically become an islamist state, because I can guarrantee you that's what will happen.

I wouldn't characterise it in those terms exactly.

The balance I am referring to is more about addressing what it is that makes Mali fundamentally an unstable nation state.

I don't think overthrowing the country rule and shitting on the constitution of the country will do any good though.

If anything the current intervention will increase the power of AQMI, it will certainly give them a recruitment boost. Unlike Ansar Dine they aren't based in Mali, they can just pack up and go to Libya or Southern Algeria or Niger.

We have basically no deep ties with Niger, Lybia is really Italy's problem and southern Algeria is under control by the lovely Algerian state.
Ansar Dine really need to ditch AQMI if they want to not have the thing escalate badly.
On top of that, it's basically the only "good" thing our newly elected president have as far as good news, don't expect a withdrawal until he earned some points there.
Yes he's even more moronic than Sarkozy (even he didn't want to touch the situation in Mali).
 
It's like in basically all modern democracies, number 40 will still be viable and legitimate as long as there's election close by.
Let's not act like #1 is not biased toward a specific special interest group (and if you're not part of them you're SOL).
It's still miles ahead people just taking arms and shitting on the country flag so to speak.
You know about the kidnapping and deposition of the Prime Minister that disagreed with them, and the reordering of the cabinet to fill it with their loyalists right?

I really don't see how that can even begin to resemble what a representative democracy is about. When there is a coup, the people responsible need to be brought to justice, this 'stepping back into the shadows' thing shows that the Malian government is fundamentally undermined. It has no democratic legitimacy because the people in government were appointed by the military, not by an election.

Then our positions are closer than the argument would let on.
As far as I'm concerned, elections need to happen ASAP (when the rebellion ends basically).
You have more hope for elections that would go against the military than I do then.
It's done to restore the borders of the state, democratic or not.
The country has deep ties to my country and as such a part of the population will not exactly sit idly by to get cut of family when the country basically become an islamist state, because I can guarrantee you that's what will happen.
Exactly, it is to restore the borders of the state that France created in the 60s, against all the protestations of the people within that very state.
I don't think overthrowing the country rule and shitting on the constitution of the country will do any good though.
What are you talking about with this comment? The South is still the South, it just means that the North of the country, which has wanted out since they were grouped in with the South by a white man's scribbling (not to mention Southern lobbying) will actually have some measure of autonomy to define its own destiny.



We have basically no deep ties with Niger, Lybia is really Italy's problem and southern Algeria is under control by the lovely Algerian state.
You make it sound like they are just palming off the problem on other states... which isn't that inaccurate I guess.

Ansar Dine really need to ditch AQMI if they want to not have the thing escalate badly.
On top of that, it's basically the only "good" thing our newly elected president have as far as good news, don't expect a withdrawal until he earned some points there.
Yes he's even more moronic than Sarkozy (even he didn't want to touch the situation in Mali).
The bodies are going to start piling up, if they stay there for any amount of time... so I wish him good luck with bringing home good news.

As to Ansar Dine needing to ditch AQIM in case it escalates badly... they are getting bombed from the air and Azawad is being invaded. What would be a further escalation? Nukes? Lol.

They are now going to be pushed into deeper ties with AQIM, if they are defeated militarily and pushed into the periphery, they will likely become more and more linked to groups like AQIM and probably take on a similar form too.
 
expectable because I think right now everybody is saying WTF Hollande, why are we there again ? Why all of the sudden ?

The stuff I was reading said that it was a part of the reason for him being viewed as an alternative to Sarkozy. Not specifically the intervention but rather his active engagement in foreign policy in France's backyard (backing groups in Syria for example). Is this the case do you think?

It is not out of the question that this Mali intervention is a part of that engagement, but people like it when their country isn't blind to foreign policy but less so when that actually means real things happening (dead soldiers for example).
 
Like I said in an earlier post, the war is very popular in France, IPSOS says 63% favorable. Hollande's popularity is going up because of it.

Hollande has actually made a lot of speeches about getting out of Françafrique, but the situation was so bad here that he apparently had no choice but to do something, ECOWAS was very insistent it seems.

That or he was lying all along.
 
Hoho, suddenly when they get their asses kicked and are about to be persecuted and summarily executed by the local non-Tuareg population/army they bail out and "reject all forms of extremism and terrorism". How convenient.

"Hey look, we might have cut a few hands, stoned a few people to death, hired and sent children soldiers to their deaths, but let's forget all that and talk peacefully". Wishful thinking at its finest.
 
1358852633-tof1.jpg


That's one badass pic.
 
French forces in Mali 'capture' Gao

The french army is progressing really fast it looks like. Might actually be better if the islamists could retreat a little more slowly, to give the ECOWAS troops some time to get there. Would be better if the african troops took back the north themselves.

French are already headed to Tumbuktu.
 
French-led troops 'have control of Timbuktu airport'
On Saturday, they seized Gao, the most populous city in northern Mali.

Thousands of people poured out into the streets to celebrate the arrival of the troops.
---
"We control the airport at Timbuktu," a senior Malian army officer told the AFP. "We did not encounter any resistance."

Looks like the easy part is about to be over. There's only one city left to mop up and that's controlled by Ansar Dine and since they want to open talks they mgiht be able to avoid fighting for it.
 
So been pretty successful so far then.
Suspect Mali and neighbouring countries to get some arms deals soon enough to allow quick responses to any attacks from the desert and to set up patrols.

Would have been disasterous to have had no intervention.
 
Seems like the rebels are doing more historical damage as they're fleeing Timbuktu :/

Mali rebels fleeing Timbuktu burn library full of ancient manuscripts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/28/mali-timbuktu-library-ancient-manuscripts

Islamist insurgents retreating from the ancient Saharan city of Timbuktu have set fire to a library containing thousands of priceless ancient manuscripts, some dating back to the 13th century, in what the town's mayor described as a "devastating blow" to world heritage.

"It's true. They have burned them," Ciffe said, in a phone interview from Mali's capital, Bamako. "They also burned down several buildings. There was one guy who was celebrating in the street and they shot him."

The manuscripts survived for centuries in Timbuktu on the edge of the Sahara hidden in wooden trunks, boxes beneath the sand and caves. The majority are written in Arabic, with some in African languages, and one in Hebrew, and cover a diverse range of topics including astronomy, poetry, music, medicine and women's rights. The oldest dated from 1204
 
This reminds me of when the Taliban blew up that giant Buddha statue in Afghanistan. Barbarians, there is no punishment that is too severe for these crimes.
 
This reminds me of when the Taliban blew up that giant Buddha statue in Afghanistan. Barbarians, there is no punishment that is too severe for these crimes.

Do you know the reason behind that actually ?

While Afghanistan was suffering in poverty the world was sending aid, not to the people, but to the maintance and upholding of these statues. The destruction of the statues was the response to that.

The only thing they should be discussing with them is which side of the body they want the bullet to go. Kill them all.

And these kinds of comments is sickening. SMH.

EDIT:

I must retract my first statement about the bombing of the Buddha statues. I can't find any sources that support my claims. Guess I have to start thinking before posting on the internet. NeoGAF! I'm sure i got it from a former thread on the topic though.
 
Do you know the reason behind that actually ?

While Afghanistan was suffering in poverty the world was sending aid, not to the people, but to the maintance and upholding of these statues. The destruction of the statues was the response to that.

Oh, that's okay then.
 
Do you know the reason behind that actually ?

While Afghanistan was suffering in poverty the world was sending aid, not to the people, but to the maintance and upholding of these statues. The destruction of the statues was the response to that.

A kind of logic that only makes sense under radical theology.
 
Do you know the reason behind that actually ?

While Afghanistan was suffering in poverty the world was sending aid, not to the people, but to the maintance and upholding of these statues. The destruction of the statues was the response to that.

[citation needed]
 
France troops take last major city held by rebels

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/30/mali-conflict-french-troops-retake-kidal-airport

France backs up plan for UN peacekeeping force


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/31/france-plan-un-force-mali

The French military on Wednesday took control of the airport in Kidal, the last town held by al-Qaida-linked rebels, and is planning to quickly hand over to a larger African force, whose task will be to root out insurgents in their mountain redoubts.

"This development is extremely positive and I want this initiative to be carried through," Le Drian said on France Inter radio, adding that France would "obviously play its role".
 
surprised this hasn't been discussed or mentioned...or is this the wrong thread for it?

As Mali's Islamists retreat, Tuareg civilians fear vengeful army's reprisals

Amnesty: Mali's army 'killing civilians'

A new report by Amnesty claims the army in Mali has killed civilians and committed "serious human rights abuses" during the conflict against armed groups in the country.

It follows a ten-day visit to the region by observers from Amnesty International.

Releasing a new briefing based on the research on Friday, Amnesty also said that Islamist armed groups have committed serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, including unlawful killings and the recruitment of child soldiers.

Additionally, said the organisation, there is evidence that at least five civilians, including three children, were killed in an airstrike carried out as part of a joint operation by the French and the Malian armies in order to stop the offensive of the Islamist armed groups.

During its visit, the Amnesty delegation conducted research in the towns of Ségou, Sévaré, Niono, Konna and Diabaly.

The briefing includes witness testimonies alleging that the Malian army arrested and extrajudicially executed more than two dozen civilians, mainly in the northern city of Sévaré on 10 January, on the eve of the French intervention.

Bodies 'dumped into a well'

Eyewitnesses in the city described how they saw soldiers dump the bodies of several people into a well in the Waïludé neighbourhood. “Once the bodies had been thrown and were in the well, [the soldiers] fired two or three bursts of machine gun fire into the well,” one witness said.

People spoke of how the Malian security forces apparently targeted people they suspected of ties to Islamist armed groups - often on very tenuous grounds, such as the clothes they were wearing or their ethnic origin.

It also claims that the Malian army has also carried out arbitrary arrests of people suspected of ties to the militants. Amnesty has spoken to several detainees who reported being beaten or otherwise ill-treated while in detention.

Amnesty International’s Mali researcher Gaëtan Mootoo said: "As fighting is continuing in Mali, all parties to the conflict must ensure that they respect international humanitarian law - and in particular to ensure the humane treatment of captives while taking all necessary precautions to minimise harm to civilians.

"Many people are genuinely afraid of being arrested, or worse, by the military. The security forces must ensure that people are protected from any reprisals based on ethnicity or perceived political sympathy.

Calls for independent investigation

"The authorities should also immediately launch an independent and impartial investigation into any reports of extrajudicial executions by the armed forces, and suspend any security personnel suspected of involvement in human rights violations."

Amnesty has also documented reports of Islamist armed groups carrying out extrajudicial executions. Eyewitnesses described how militants summarily killed five injured Malian soldiers as well as one civilian in the town of Diabaly on 14 and 15 January, following its capture by militant groups.

There is also mounting evidence that Islamist militants have been forcibly recruiting and using child soldiers in their ranks.

In Diabaly, several people described how they had seen children, some as young as ten years old, armed with rifles together with Islamist fighters. In Ségou, Amnesty was able to interview two captured child soldiers - one of whom showed signs of mental illness.

Gaëtan Mootoo said:"The boy was silent and downcast, and wasn't able to talk to us - it was like his mind wasn’t fully there. The recruitment of child soldiers has to stop immediately, and any still in the ranks of the Islamist armed groups should be released."
Civilians 'killed in air strike'

Amnesty claims there is also disturbing evidence to indicate that five civilians - including a mother and her three young children - were killed in an air strike launched in the context of a counter-offensive carried out by the French and Malian armies. The strike occurred on the morning of 11 January, the first day of the French intervention, in the town of Konna.

French officials have told Amnesty that they did not carry out any attacks at that time in Konna, while a senior member of the Malian government and a Malian high-ranking military official confirmed to the organisation that a joint operation had begun targeting the town in the morning of 11 January with the participation of the French military.

http://www.channel4.com/news/amnesty-malis-army-killing-civilians
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom