ReNewed African Recolonisation Front in Mali

Introduction

Last week beleaguered French President, Mr Francois Hollande signed-off French troops for active duty in Mali under the guise of humanitarian intervention against threat of terrorism. Parallel to this decision, he equally approved pacification of his compatriots with disinformation via raising domestic threat level to justify renewed intervention-investment in Africa. In a sense to continue the counterproductive projection of France as a great power in Africa which was commenced by the former president, Mr Nicolas Sarkozy.

Beyond the rhetoric in western capitals and on mainstream media, this is a serious move by various players whose common interests have little to do with Mali's strategic interest. We’ll show historical consistency indicating that a geopolitical settlement is afoot with clear losers and few winners. Mali provides a convergence of forces, time and space for continuing the recolonisation war of Africa in a complex array of relationships spread across political, economic and religious spectra.

Humanitarian Devaluation

While territorial integrity and sovereignty is unambiguous reality on the ground shows otherwise. Mali’s intensification of conflict in the last decade is a by-product of both environmental and culture-religious dynamics. On the one hand expansion of Sahara which not only decreases access to fresh water also reduces availability of arable land which increases pressure on nomadic and settled populations. This dynamic have been contained for centuries with minimal problems. On another level this part of the world is populated predominately by Muslims. Populations in these areas have been living there before the emergence of Arabs and or Islam.  The temperament of their religiosity possess unique progressive characteristics and dissimilar cultural niches compared to Arabo-Islamic dynamics.

The current upheaval was accelerated by United States direct violent campaign to recolonise Africa with the clinical destruction of Libya and murder of Col Gadhafi in 2011. Of course the usual suspects or remoras of the north led by France pretended being in the driver’s seat to decimate Libya. Libya was vehemently opposed to US AFRICOM programme which Col.Gadhafi understood trully and clearly as a tool of strategic destabilisation and recolonisation of the continent. The attack on Libya followed a consistent pattern where if US desire implementation of strategic initiative in Africa, State Department sublets action to erstwhile colonialists. Whether it is Congo in the 1960s, or Nigeria during Nigeria-Biafra War or apartheid South Africa during Angolan War of Independence; the pattern remain immutable. Sarkozy France found opportunity to compete with London for attention on the Capitol Hill in Cote D’Ivorie, Libya and now Mali. General De Gaulle must be rueing in his grave.

The curious twist in the Libyan debacle is the coalition of the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’. It is important to isolate the use made by NATO/US of so-called Al Qaeda to dismantle Libya in the name of humanitarian intervention. Now even the sands of Libyan Desert are mourning. Conventional weapons stores of Tripoli became free for all with the first impact unleashed in Mali. Strategic planners of Libyan destruction cannot be silly enough not to expect wider spatial consequences.

The assembly of like minds of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have quarried West Africa from the north for its mineral resources. A similar action is unfolding with no end in sight in East Africa with Kigali, Nairobi and Kampala doubling up as second fiddle for US interest at the cost of brotherly blood. What is interesting is the speed with which UN Security Council resolution was passed last week and France jumped into the fray. Why the rush? Do the so-called terrorists have military capacity to hold on to their current gains in the long term? There is no evidence that the so-called terrorists are being resupplied from unknown source(s). Mind you condition on the ground will not be concluded with aerial bombing alone, boots will be deployed and French body bags taken home later.

France is not in any way doing her own bidding rather responded to instruction from State Department while US 3500 troops are deployed to Africa non-stop training of various African armies. The irony remains that US is in the driving seat rather than in the ‘rear’. While US has pivoted her strategic initiative in Asia, she perceives Africa as another battleground for checkmating China. Beijing is fully aware. The long term implications are still hazy but history has shown that US has complicated understanding of Africa and doesn’t always get her way despite bombastic rhetoric. In any case avoidance of heavy footprint in African theatre allows Washington DC respite from restive domestic front while France jumps at the chance pushed or shoved. In the process meagre Malian infrastructure and resources will be inevitably decimated for new contracts to US and French firms.

It is inconceivable that one of the countries (France) that triggered a mess is called back to fix it. On the other hand the use of Saudi oriented Wahhabi religionists to destabilise Africa is taken note of. A universalist dogmatism that attempt to eliminate local idiosyncrasies and destroy distinct religio-cultural heritage is now repeated in Mali similar to Afghanistan where inhuman governance triggered mass terrorisation of populations and blowing up of ancient monuments by Taliban. The silence of many African capitals on this emerging pattern is instructive. The complex relationship that pins the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in a common alliance of military significance is wreaking havoc on Africa. Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisation thesis needs asterisk on this point.

While no war fizzles out quickly France will hang around for a while until ‘the job is done’ or to the satisfaction of Washington DC. On the other hand significant mineral resources under Malian bowels will be secured as war mongers have no interest in countries that produce broccoli. In summary Mali’s territorial integrity and sovereignty though compromised for decades is now full enhanced. From this point potential expansion of US military/strategic design will be gradually enforced to encircle West Africa from the sand to the coast.

Winners and Losers

In any conflict direct distinction is made between investors/profit makers and can-carriers as this conflict will not be different. It is easy to isolate a winner in the short term; United States. It is a nearly cost-free job done via proxies from the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ camps to project power and start implementation of strategic designs.

The next winner in this unfolding mess is China. The last decade or two has presented Beijing with unrivalled opportunity to watch rivals labour in self-destruction. While she remains cautious in her strategic meanderings, Beijing is careful not to be reminded of harsh historical lessons where African countries among others started her on the way to greatness with 1971 recovery of her UN Security permanent seat from Taiwan.  Beijing is aware of her investments in Africa and its fragile capacity as Libyan debacle testified. Nevertheless Beijing is determined to fight her wars by other means including but not limited to diplomacy but short of armed conflict. Beijing is playing for the long haul.

The primary loser is France. Deploying heavy military hardware and personnel across the continent more than once under 24 months in a reversing economy is short of strategic stupidity. Regardless of assurances, Paris will have to find the stomach to pay for her folly. More so if there is any pie to be shared; US interest dictates a winner-takes-all strategy.  It will be a miracle for Paris to sustainably justify unwarranted spending on defence while unemployment is rising on the one hand and tax receipts are falling.

Mali as a state or what remains of it is fully compromised as new internal forces will be joggling for positions towards reconfiguration of their polity. Initial contests will be between pro and anti-intervention/devaluation. Only time will determine if parity will emerge with Libya on the scale of destruction. There is chance that low level conflicts will continue even after US/NATO complete their mission as Cote D’Ivoire example plays out.

The biggest loser is ECOWAS whose lack of foresight, absence of leadership and total underwhelming of the situation only confirmed that regional groups of this calibre are simply cosmetic. Not even Nigeria whose foreign policy from inception acknowledged French encirclement acted honourably! Their raison d’etre is wholly compromised, lacking in strategic identity and is deformed ontologically.

Nevertheless there are opportunities from this event in the potential settlement of accounts between the two main geopolitical powers, US and China. In this conflict European powers or what remain of them have confirm their puerility and death keel. In the near future settlement US will be forced to confront China directly in Africa in the same manner it acquiesced in 1972 Richard Nixon summit with Chairman Mao. The trigger being acceptance that proxy war against Beijing via Vietnam was lost.

As Pliny, the Roman scholar/politician said of Africa, “Something new always comes out of Africa”. A positive new for the benefit of Africa and Africans is expected to turn round the corner of time after the reign of human intervention or rather human devaluation.