<
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/11/rice_french_mali_interv
ention_plan_is_crap> Rice: French plan for Mali intervention is 'crap'
Posted By <
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/blog/16159> Colum Lynch
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091022_meta_block.gif
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - 1:33 PM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091022_meta_block.gif
Key U.N. powers said today that Mali's military's arrest and ouster of the
country's transitional leader, Prime Minister Cheick Modibo Diarra, would
not deter the U.N. Security Council from forging ahead with plans to
intervene in Mali to confront Islamists militants in the north of the
country. But it did little to paper over differences between the United
States and France on how to get the job done.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, offered a decidedly
uncharitable assessment of a French- and African-backed plan to retake
control of northern Mali from a coalition of Islamist militants linked to al
Qaeda. "It's crap," the U.S. envoy told a gathering of U.N.-based officials,
according to one of the officials. Rice's office declined to comment.
The American envoy's assessment reflected deep misgivings that the Malian
army, supported by a Nigerian-led coalition of 3,300 troops from 15 Western
African countries has the manpower or the skills required to contend with a
battle-tested insurgency with experience fighting in the Sahel's unforgiving
desert. Rice's candor also deals a setback to a long, drawn-out effort by
France and West African countries to secure U.N. Security Council mandate
for a regional intervention force in Mali.
The United States is not alone in having misgivings. U.N. Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon recently issued a report that argued against an immediate
military intervention in Mali, saying the international community should
devote its attention to stitching together a political agreement among
Mali's squabbling groups, setting force aside as a "last resort." Herve
Ladsous, the head of the U.N.'s peacekeeping department and one of the
U.N.'s few advocates of military intervention, said recently that even if
the intervention plan is approved it would take until September or October,
2013, for the international force to be deployed.
"We should not forget that in any military intervention, even when
successful, tens of thousands more people are likely to become displaced
both inside the country and across borders," U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees Antonio Guterres told the Security Council on Monday. "Newly
arriving refugees in the neighboring countries are increasingly citing the
prospect of military intervention as one of the reasons that pushed them to
flee."
Despite these concerns -- and Rice's frank remark -- the United States
supports military action in Mali to confront Islamist militants. Just not
yet. And not without a role for some of America's most important
counterterrorism allies (principally Algeria) that are not members of the
West African peacekeeping coalition, and which have so far proven reluctant
to sign on to a risky fight with Mali's Islamists that could provoke the
group's allies inside Algeria.
The predicament has contributed to the impression of American policymaking
as confused in confronting the spread of terrorism and militant Islam in
Mali, where insurgents have benefited from an influx of weapons from Libya
in the wake of Muammar al-Qaddafi's downfall. But some officials believe the
muddled picture is more a reflection of the fact that America's
counterinsurgency strategy in the region remains a work in progress.
The Obama administration is seeking broader congressional support for
counterterrorism operations in Mali and other northern African countries,
while U.S. military planners have been pressing Mali's neighbors with desert
fighting experience, including Algeria, Chad, and Mauritania, to participate
in military action. William Burns, the U.S. deputy secretary of state,
traveled to Algiers over the weekend to prod the government into deepening
its role in Mali.
But American diplomats in New York have been urging the Security Council to
go slowly, putting off a foreign campaign to confront the Islamists until a
new president is elected.
Washington favors what it calls a "two-step authorization" of military
force. The first step would involve the swift approval of a resolution
authorizing the deployment of an African force to train the Malian army,
which put up virtually no resistance to the Islamists, and would express an
intention to conduct offensive operations in the north, but only if it is
satisfied with a refined military plan -- known as a concept of operations
-- that would be due to the council within 45 days. A second resolution,
according to the U.S. plan, would authorize offensive operations in northern
Mali, as well as a follow-up effort to stabilize a reconquered northern
Mali. It remains unclear what military role the United States would play in
the counterterrorism operation.
America's diplomatic caution reflects misgivings about the African military
plan, questions about who will participate in -- and pay for -- the mission.
But it is also stems from American legal constraints. The United States is
prohibited by law from providing financial support to Mali's government
because the democratically elected President Amadou Toumani Toure was
toppled in a military coup in March. Thus it is pressing Mali's interim
government to hold presidential elections, initially scheduled for April
2013, before sending foreign armies into Mali to confront the Islamists.
"Mali needs now more than ever a strong democratic government to restore its
democratic tradition and provide the strong leadership necessary to
negotiate a political agreement with northern rebels, reform its security
sector, and lead a military intervention in the north to restore and
maintain Mali's territorial integrity," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
for African Affairs Johnnie Carson said last week.
At the Security Council on Monday, Rice said the effort to confront al Qaeda
in Mali will require a broader effort by governments in the region to combat
transitional crime, including drug trafficking, and the proliferation of
terror organizations. "The rise of violent extremism and organized crime
across the region is aggravating the situation in Mali," she told the
council.
Rice said there is a need to pursue a multifaceted strategy, including
political, humanitarian, environmental, and military pieces, to address the
crisis. "Given Mali's delicate situation, we must be careful to address the
crises in Mali without further destabilizing the entire region," she said.
"Any military intervention in Mali must thus be designed to minimize the
operation's humanitarian impact and the impact on human rights." But she
provided few insights into what role Washington would play in support of the
counterinsurgency operation in Mali.
France agrees that the U.N. needs to pursue a coordinated strategy that
addresses many of the country's political, humanitarian, and environmental
needs. But it also believes that yesterday's ouster of Prime Minister Diarra
only highlights the need for swift military action. "These developments
underline the need for the rapid deployment of an African stabilization
force," France's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Philippe Lalliot, told
reporters on Tuesday, according to Reuters.
The crisis in Mali underscores the rising threat of anti-Western Islamic
militancy in North Africa and the Sahel. But it also marks the clearest
evidence of blowback from the U.S.-backed military campaign that toppled
Qaddafi.
Early this year, Touareg separatists -- many of whom served as Qaddafi's
mercenaries -- fighting under the banner of the National Movement for the
Liberation of Azawad, struck an alliance with Islamist groups, including al
Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and Ansar al-Dine, to fulfill their long-held
dream of establishing an independent Touareg nation. Backed by an influx of
weapons from the Libyan war, they quickly defeated the national army,
triggering a military coup in the capital, Bamako, by younger officers
angered that the government had not supplied them with enough military
equipment to meet the fight in the north. But the Touaregs were quickly
forced out of the way by their Islamist allies, who had little interest in
securing Touareg independence.
The movement now claims control of more than half of the country's
territory, including the key northern cities of Timbuktu, Kidal, and Gao.
U.N. and African mediators are trying to persuade more moderate factions to
break ranks with militants linked to al Qaeda. While there have been some
statements, U.N. diplomats say it is too early to say whether those efforts
are succeeding or not.
Traore Rokiatou Guikine, Mali's minister for African integration, warned the
U.N. Security Council last week that foreign Islamists are taking advantage
of the security vacuum in northern Mali to consolidate their gains. "The
deployment of the force is urgent," she said. "Terrorists have stepped up
their activities and are seeking reinforcements to carry out jihad from
Mali. Mali is on the way to becoming a breeding ground for terrorists."
The government in Bamako has received firm backing from France, South
Africa, India, and other council members for a military response. "The
situation in Mali requires an urgent response from the international
community," South Africa's U.N. envoy Baso Sangqu said on Monday. "If left
unchecked, the situation in the Sahel threatens to spread and affect the
countries in the region and beyond, and pose a threat to international peace
and security," said Sangqu.
France, meanwhile, favors the adoption of a single Security Council
resolution authorizing a foreign intervention force by Christmas, although
it could be many months before it is ever sent to Mali.
The French favor what they call a "two track" approach -- promoting a
democratic political transition while training Malian security forces to
conduct offensive military operations. Unlike the Americans, however, French
officials believe it is illogical for the military operations to be put off
until after Mali's presidential election, particularly as Malians living in
territory seized by the Islamists would not be able to vote. "Do you think
that al Qaeda will be securing voting booths for a fair election?" asked one
Security Council diplomat.
And with Diarra now removed from office by the military officers who toppled
his predeccesor, the country's political future is now even murkier.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Wed Dec 12 2012 - 08:26:08 EST
