Where In The World Is Timbuktu?

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 20^th 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. 

Flower of Scotland

1916: In the middle of World War One, Ireland stages a bid for independence in Dublin, threatening the British chances of success at a crucial moment in the war effort.

2012: In the middle of the worst recession since the Wall Street Crash, Scotland stages a democratic bid for independence “in Edinburgh, in London, or anywhere the Prime Minister pleases”, with many deeming the act detrimental to British growth at a crucial moment of European downgrading.

Certainly, the debate waging around the possibility of independence versus unity has seen battle lines drawn, but these may be premature concerns.

Previous breakups of the United Kingdom in Ireland provide a primary cause for concern. However, the eventual independence granted to Ireland was more an appeasement following a costly war, with transition handled distastefully by both parties. Looking back over the course and administration of the change of power, there are easily identifiable mistakes that could (and should) be avoided in the case of Scottish independence.

Continued violence and hostility is the true legacy of Irish independence and that was a threat suffered particularly till the turn of the century, but a decade ago. Scottish independence, on the other hand, would be entered into through democratic debate rather than the forceful mode of conduct that kickstarted and marked the Irish movement. England, not as prominent on a world scene, would be more amenable to these discussions than its own rash nature almost 100 years ago, when maintaining status was a priority.

Besides, a peaceful resolution would be encouraged while resources are stretched so thin across the United Kingdom due to cuts.

However, Scotland would surely earn the lion’s share of these resources from a split. Economically vibrant at the moment, Scotland has, as expected, the second largest GVA per capita in the United Kingdom, after England. Yet, many do not appreciate, or are completely unaware of, the fact that revenue from the North Sea oil rigs are not included in these figures, as the profit is currently ‘distributed’ around the UK instantly. With independence, 91% of the oil area lies within the Scottish borders. The sudden wealth that would be available to the northern territory as a whole would transform many areas of public spending and investment: leaving Scotland with little deficit.

In fact, it is already recognised that Scotland is the largest producer of petroleum within the EU, and that there is potential for other offshore oil-sites.

Additionally, Scotland is the central zeitgeist for whiskey lovers worldwide. Exports in specialisms such as whiskey, shortbreads, fudges and fishing produce earn the Scottish country a reputation for delicacies renowned the world over. Add the prominence in manufacturing and construction (Glasgow for example houses the largest shipping construction area within the UK), and one can see the advantages to a booming Scottish economy.

Already a relatively rich nation, the boost proffered from continued exports would ensure gained capital and circulation of the pound. In 2007 alone, Scotland’s top 10 export destinations alone earned the country in excess of £18,825 million. Imagine the growth in this figure with Scottish independence, backed peacefully by England.

In turn, this could help Scotland to tackle its slums and poverty problems. Despite the economic benefits of the oil, there is still marked difference between lifestyles of many Scots and their counterparts south of the border. An average male in Glasgow for example only has a life expectancy of 69. Scottish public services see themselves as inhabiting a different social area than England and Wales, with different key issues of poverty, drugs, and unemployment to tackle.

However, even with the separation, use of the GBP will insure continued intrinsic links with the remaining UK factions. Extra trade on the pound from Scotland will ensure continued circulation that benefits England and Wales itself in the long run.

A poll by YouGov last May showed marginal support for the move, but an overwhelming rejection from Scotland itself.

Perhaps the break-away of Scotland would also encourage a deeper look at the British image: a modern twenty-first century conglomerate of cultures hinged on London. The investment seen across Scotland should be mimicked across larger areas of the UK. HS2 makes some steps in that direction, but relatively few and relatively slowly. England is not capitalising upon its current market opportunities. Expanse of infrastructure would allow greater migration of peoples across the country for jobs. Focussing our main sources of income on development would allow a certain independence in a time of Eurozone uncertainty, creating a more stable market area.  A galvanised population to the North could teach English people a thing or two about national pride for sure.

Scuppering Salmond’s hopes for Scotland however are the Welsh and Irish members of Parliament, claiming that Scottish dominion in its own right would leave the two areas outvoiced within Westminster.

Nonetheless, considering moves towards Welsh parliaments, it would appear rather foolhardy to prevent progress for the sake of tradition. Not only does the move allow England a greater democratic voice, but it is not in the apocalyptic fashion that the Welsh and Irish describe: rather radicalisation on both sides of the border due to the split would see new ideas emerge as to how the country should be run and here lies the prospect of wide social and cultural change (the thing the Welsh and Irish appear to advocate amidst a Tory government).

With no date currently set for the vote (despite furious debate over timing this past week), we shall have to watch the development and resolution of lingering issues, such as currency, military, and Nuclear warheads over the coming months.

Shaking of the shackles of union is never an easy transition, but for the cultural, economic and social benefits that Scotland could wager, perhaps the UK should be more amenable to the shouts of “FREEDOM”.

12 Unresolved Questions of Scottish Independence.