French mission
French mission

-Editorial-

PARIS - The problem with making statements when you are the President is that you have to follow through.

Before the French intervention in Mali, President François Hollande said on Jan. 11 that in Mali, France had "no other purpose than to fight terrorism.” On Jan. 15, he revised his motives: now, on top of “stopping the terrorist aggression,” France wanted to “help Mali recover its territorial integrity” and make sure there were “legitimate authorities and an electoral process.”

No one is denying the seriousness of the situation in Mali. The armed groups from the north – ruthless jihadists committing atrocities – were heading south and threatening to take the capital, Bamako. France stepped up to make sure this African state wouldn’t fall under the rule of extremists – with all the regional consequences that this could entail.

But as military operations are amplifying and gaining momentum, France’s purpose and mandate would benefit from a little clarity.

No one can blame France for deciding to use force in Mali without a legal international mandate – it had received a formal appeal from authorities in Bamako requesting emergency bilateral assistance. Whether this intervention is legal in a strict “UN sense” is a different matter, though. France deployed ground troops without the explicit approval of the UN – the United Nations Security Council resolution passed in December only allowing for an African-led intervention.

When a war – any war – starts to drag on longer than expected, people start asking questions. To justify its decision and be transparent with its partners, Paris should clearly state the length, scope and objectives of its military action in Mali.

Minding Milosevic

This is the best way to avoid “mission creep,” i.e. getting caught in a quagmire of endless new military objectives – with a military effort that keeps expanding, troops going deeper into the country and military excesses waiting to happen. This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan.

There is something else that we have learned from the Mali intervention: when the interests, the strategy and the values at play demand it, François Hollande’s France is capable of emancipating itself from the UN resolutions’ rigid stranglehold.

In 1999 in Kosovo, as Slobodan Milosevic’s deadly militias were threatening the stability of a whole part of Europe, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin took a similar stand. The absence of a UN resolution (vetoed by Russia) did not stop France from doing what was geopolitically and morally right.

Wars come and go; every situation has its specific characteristics, and the ghost of Iraq’s traumatic war – based on lies and carried out without UN support – is still in everyone’s minds. France has always considered itself as a “daughter of the UN.”

But Mali and Kosovo are proof of what democracies are capable of when their actions stop being contingent on a Chinese or Russian veto. This resonates particularly strongly as we watch the slaughter of the Syrian people, arguing that we are powerless and hiding behind the UN “paralysis.”

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in
Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

​What The Alexei Navalny Saga Tells Us About Putin’s Intentions On Ukraine

In the year since the arrest of Vladimir Putin's last opponent a new Cold War has begun. In the absence of internal enemies, Russia's increasingly powerful yet isolated ruler must turn to external targets.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking with government members in November

Anna Akage

-Analysis-

One year ago this week, on Jan. 17, 2021, Vladimir Putin effectively disposed of his last viable domestic opponent when Alexei Navalny was detained at the Sheremetyevo airport north of Moscow.

Putin had long struggled with how to handle the firebrand anti-corruption lawyer and politician — and finally decided to eliminate him. Months before, in fact, Navalny was poisoned with the deadly biological weapon Novichok but miraculously survived. The surveillance and attempted murder were carried out by Russia’s FSB state security operatives, one of whom confessed to Navalny himself in a phone conversation.

Keep reading... Show less
Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS
MOST READ