Another year, another international intervention. As a French led consort of troops make their – so far relatively unhindered – advance on the city of Timbuktu; we must ask ourselves again whether military and economic advantages give “Western” “Developed” powers the right, or the responsibility, to intervene.
Potentially, Mali may offer an example whereby the superior capabilities of developed nations offer the opportunity to restore a democratic government and civilian peace and security, for a country “under threat” and also for the rest of the world, with the minimal bloodshed and maximum efficiency. France can claim a post-colonial responsibility for Mali, which was only made independent in the 1960’s, which potentially justifies intervention to protect a former population. International intervention can also arguably be justified by the “terror threat” posed by Islamist insurgents, against whom the collaborative forces are fighting. When taken by Islamist rebel forces, Sharia law was widely imposed on the citizens of Goa, against the will of the majority of the population, reportedly turning it into “another Afghanistan under the. The USA, France, and other pro-involvement countries – including the Mali government and various African leaders – certainly claim that military and financial support to eliminate al-Qaida linked insurgents is both the wish of the Malian population as a whole, and essential to the security of the world in terms of the ongoing fight against terrorism. With the questionable ability, availability, and stability, of AU forces and those provided by Nigeria, even the departing AU chairman has praised the involvement of France, the USA and other international bodies, claiming that the AU should have acted sooner. Surely with all this praise and adulation and the effectiveness of the French led campaign so far, we should have no problem with this international intervention?
However, inevitably, the situation in Mali is far from clear-cut. The official Malian government currently receiving support is itself the result of a recent military coup, headed by US trained Captain Sanogo – hardly the best example of a democratic institution. What’s more numerous Human Rights organisations situated in Mali have reported numerous instances of violence and abuse on the part of the “liberating” Malian forces. Even taking aside the questionable morality of the intended victors, the military campaign itself involves air raids, bombings and inevitable destruction and civilian casualties.

Then there is the alternative argument that this is an issue in Africa, for Africa as a region, and the continent should be given the opportunity to use its infrastructure and institutions, such as the AU, to resolve it. Numerous African nations, such as Chad and Nigeria have pledged troops to assist the effort so is outside influence really necessary and in Africa’s best interest? Could this be just another example of the West’s reluctance to allow Africa to establish mechanisms which can overcome these situations? Further, can’t we argue that this is another excellent opportunity for the west to impose its will on a country? In the light of the recent revolutions if Africa, where the majority of the elected parties have had at least an element of Islamic within their constitution, is this a modern day reflection of the “Red Scare” that featured so often in communist era interventions?
Whatever your perspective, people in Mali are suffering and standing on the brink of change. What happens next in the country will shape its future, and set yet another example of “what happens when the west interferes”. All we can really do is stay aware, stay analytical, learn from what happens next, and not believe everything we read in the paper.

By Ella Grimwade