by Bruno Drweski
The events of Mali can not be separated from the long-term effects of colonization and neo-colonial policies pursued since the overthrow of the first truly independent Malian government, the one of President Modibo Keita, put to death in prison while the perpetrators of the coup had been brought to power under the influence of French secret services. These events are also the direct result of the destruction of the Libyan state due to the interference of the NATO powers and absolutist monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. Weapons and armed groups gathered in northern Mali coming from Libya after the fall of the Libyan State, without U.S. space satellites sounded the alarm.
It is also clear that during decades the Malian government and its army were decaying in force, like other neighboring states, and this was tolerated and even encouraged by foreign powers, and the Malian soldiers who have been trained by the U.S. Military turned suddenly to the rebel camp when they arrived in northern Mali. And Mali, like its neighbors, conceals strategic resources (uranium, oil, gas, gold) at a time when new powers are competing with the United States and their protégés, looking for sources energy and resources to ensure their development.
The conflict in Mali is also characterized by other contradictions between Western powers and big transnational corporations in an area which is traditionally the sphere of influence of France.
And it is in this context that we must analyze the French intervention which received a remote support from its official allies and emerging powers. In a country that has no real legitimate government since the actual Malian government is the result of a balance of power caused by a coup d’état, and that French intervention enjoys the support of ECOWAS, an a priori strictly economical organization, whose leaders are often challenged about their sovereignty, particularly in the case of Ivory Coast government which was set up following an external intervention, a first in the international annals, to decide who was supposed to have won the elections in this country.
It is also clear that the only independent state formed in the region is now Algeria, the largest country in Africa since the dismantling of the unified Sudan accomplished under the influence of the USA and Israel. And it has been found in analysis coming from AFRICOM, the old separatist French plan dating from the end of the colonial period of the „great Sahara“, planning to break the existing states in favor of a large sparsely populated entityt and easily controllable. AFRICOM is the U.S. military command for Africa, which is still looking unsuccessfully, for an African country agreeing to host his seat for the moment in „exile“ in Stuttgart.
Atlanticism and inter-imperialist contradictions
Since Qatar is clearly behind all attempts to carry on violent changes in the Arab and Muslim countries, especially Mali, and this country, for the majority of its territory, constitutes a U.S. army base, how can we imagine the contradictions that seem to emerge in Mali between the French and the position of Qatar and his US protector ?
It seems that there is in fact a complementarity role between French and U.S. strategic objective to control Africa and block the development of contacts between African countries and the BRICS emerging powers, in particularly China, and also to prevent the continuation of real independent States in this axis which begins on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and extends into Xinjiang axis cutting Africa and Eurasia in two parts. But there is also an inter-imperialist contradiction between the old French colonialism and the Anglo-Saxon powers, between Total and British Petroleum plus Exxon Mobile. Presumably the same applies for uranium and gold.
However, in Algeria, the recent attack from Libya of the gas site In Amenas was belonging to British Petroleum, that asked for no Algerian military presence there since security was supposed to have been delegated to private security companies chosen by the company …we did not see in action during the terrorist attack. Difficult then not to think this attack was not seen as a good pretext to interfere in Algerian affairs, which was made impossible because of the quick response of the Algerian authorities. In a country whose population did not yield to sirens of the so called „Arab Spring“ coming from Algerian parties, „secular“, „regionalists“ or „Islamist“ regularly received by the U.S. ambassador and for some of them benefiting from satellite “islamic” television based in London and Qatar. This may then explain the anger manifested initially by the British Prime Minister against Algiers. Algeria seems then to be a target for NATO. It even seems to be their next target.
In this context, one might think that there is in Mali two levels of contradictions: first the inter-imperialist contradiction between France and the Anglo-Saxon powers. Then there is a simultaneous determination of France to strengthen its position within the Atlantic alliance, showing the essential role it could play in the delivery of all attempts to develop closer relations between African countries and all countries committed to developing „South-South“ relationships.
It is impossible, therefore if we remain committed to the UN Charter and its commitment to national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, to support any political intervention in Africa. We can only support everything tending towards the restoration of full independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Mali, Algeria and all neighboring countries. Countries threatened by long ago established terrorist groups, initially known for their links with crime and secret services, before they pledged allegiance, for most of them to the so-called „Islamism“ manifactured under the influence of archaic monarchies and whose activities are supported by external powers, in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. Like it or not, there is a direct link between the events in Libya, Syria, Mali and Algeria. The end of the support of absolutist monarchies of the Gulf, relay of U.S. imperialism, to armed rebel groups in Syria, Libya and Mali should ipso facto, mean the end of conflict in these countries.
„Islamism“ a pretext to légitimize interference
We must analyzein this context the issues that trouble many activists of social progress, in particular the soc-called „Islamism“. We must remember that this concept is typically Western since the founder of Islam was leading a political party known under the name „Hezbollah“, and he was the head of a State established Medina who proclaimed the world’s first constitution, which guaranteed the rules for the coexistence of different tribes and religions in a common state. Islam is then in its principle not only a belief in the afterlife, not only a social and legal code, but it is also a political project since its beginnings (non-usurious economy, social equality before the law, religious tolerance, etc.). Although this project, like other political projects, can be read on a reactionary or on a progressive way. It is therefore clear that, just as in the case of Chavez, or even Angela Merkel, claiming a social and „political Christianism“, simultaneouslu with a Marxist social analysis in the case of Venezuela, we can not a priori deny to Muslims the right to propose a political programme in accordance with their beliefs. Unless we accept, like in the case of the hypocritical secularism denounced by Lenin in his time, a double standard recalling the colonial ethnocentrism. The question linked to „Islamism“, in fact the Takfirism, or extremist exclusivism lay elsewhere. It would be a strictly internal matter for the people concerned, denying to any outside state the right to meddle, even in the case of a reactionary character which in fact is actually the most often form taken nowadays, if these currents were not often manipulated by imperialist powers and their vassals absolutist monarchies subject to predatory capitalism globalized.
One can not confuse transnational drug, weapons and migrants traffickers who took the label of „Islam“ as a front for their activities aiming to take control of the territory, what the imperialist powers and their vassals states have allowed, and even encouraged, with the activities of other „Islamists“, even if they are reactionary. It must be remembered that at the time of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was eradicated in the name of Islam and that if Afghanistan is now once again the largest producer of drugs, it is, like it was donne previously under the auspices of the CIA in Latin America, because of the country’s occupation by NATO which substitute to an „Islamist“, reactionary and independent government a new one which was „Islamist“, based on trafficking and equally if not more reactionary in reality whatsoever towards social groupes, marginalized regions and women, far from the Capital scene for Western journalists.
It is therefore clear that there is a link between declining Western imperialist powers, absolutist monarchies created from scratch by the colonialists at the time of their strenght and trafficking „Islamist“ networks used by these circles loving to play firefighter arsonists. This does not mean that there is no contradiction between these circles. The main enemy of the peoples of the Sahara is not of local origin, it comes from the centers of imperialism, and France, if serious in its claims of respect for people, should take the path of a mutually beneficial cooperation project with african peoples, break with NATO and the EU, and developp cooperations with truly independent States of Eurasia, Mediterranean area, Africa and Latin America which are now the only real counterweight against the predatory capitalism globalized warmongers protected by NATO, the more than 700 U.S. military bases spread throughout the world and the archipelago of “black holes” of the CIA functionning under the effective cooperation of all NATO member states and all dictatorships or vassal formal democracies.
Concerning Malian people, we cannot anyway tell what is their real opinions toward the bloody events destroying their country, since nothing has been done before by external actors of the current crisis to allow negotiations between all parties representing this people.