Last week, I wrote in some detail
about the need for Western democracy to take decisive action in its stance
towards the Israel Palestine question. I argued that it had fallen under the
radar.
Yet this appears more and more a
most prevalent issue in news reporting. Whilst the world has been engrossed in
the likes of Lance Armstrong’s admission on Oprah, or whether or not Beyoncé
actually sung live at the President inauguration (because such matters are of
vital importance to the quotidian lives of the developed democracies), there
have been further instances of warfare erupting across the globe: namely, in
Mali.
Mali, a small land-locked country
in Africa, is probably unknown to most, excepting its most famous of cities,
Timbuktu. And even then, a majority couldn’t actually say that Timbuktu was in
Mali if they were faced with a pin-the-tail-on-the-country scenario. I’ll admit
myself that I know relatively little of this African country, but what has
become increasingly apparent in my observations is that the information I have
of the conflict is increasingly due to my French friends.
Hell, I only know the war in Mali
is ongoing because of my French
friends. That is not to say I’m self-absorbed: it’s just that we are gradually
having our news dictated to us from Facebook instead of actual news channels.
But then, the news channels and papers have proffered little in the way of
coverage here.
In fact, the Mali crisis has been
a recurring blight on the African continent since the middle of 2011, and its
absence from our TV screens, laptops and tablet papers is something that should
speak volumes of our preoccupations. The war here was a direct reaction to the
situation in Libya that same year. For all the media circus on Gaddafi, this
too was a seeming charade: few had real ideas of the problems in the African
country before the British response.
This is where we expected our
public conscious and journalistic preferences to take a turn: to focus on the
global and its relation to us. Yet, we have failed to follow the sparks ignited
by the Gaddafi revolution. Despite being amongst the poorest nations in the
world, Mali was considered a beacon of African democracy; a self-sustaining
country that had a recognisable and functioning government so sought after in
other trouble states. This makes it all the more concerning that the media did
not showcase the issue sooner. Essentially, the military seized power in March
2012. Tuareg rebels declared the independence of 'Azawad state' in the north,
which was quickly taken over by al-Qaeda allies, effectively splitting the
country in two and ensuring a continued battleground of hostility for the past
12 months.
Of course, no one ever expected
the troubles in Libya to remain isolated events. In this light, we have become
desensitised, almost to the point of morose boredom. The words of certain 20th
century Prime Minister ring true in our apathy: “A war in a distant nation that
we know nothing about.” But surely, just as in the 1930s, we should still be
concerned?
While the Malian government had
been busy claiming the situation in the north was under control, rank-and-file
soldiers felt humiliated and abandoned in combat with not enough military
resources and food. “The Libyan crisis didn't cause this coup but certainly
revealed the malaise felt within the army,” says Malian newspaper columnist
Adam Thiam. “President Amadou Toumani Toure hasn't been active in tackling drug
trafficking and al-Qaeda fighters, and the emergence of new rebel movements
only added to the soldiers' frustration.”
The undercurrent of tension here
is just a microcosm of the situation in many of Africa’s poorest nations. With
recent rebel activity in Algeria, the continued threat is something that has
become at least visible, if not palpable on the whole.
However, the difficulties in
resolving the Libyan crisis are still bearing consequences. A strong leader
(especially in the apparent absence of President Amadou Toumani Toure) that can
unite a reluctant Malian army could spell the beginning of further African conflict,
and a number of bordering states are set to follow in a cataclysmic domino
effect.
The rebel group, MNLA, believe
the only thing that can halt their advance into southern Mali is in fact a
European intervention, so confident they are in their support, abilities and
weaponry. “Western powers have underestimated that getting rid of Gaddafi would
have severe repercussions in the Sahel region,” says Mr Kebe, a professor in
Arab-African relations.
Once more it is an example of the Western endemic of half-heartedness in their resolve to find a permanent solution to a potentially volatile situation across much of Northern Africa. But, did Beyoncé actually sing the inauguration song live? I guess we’ll all be avidly tuning into the Superbowl next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment