Our Views: Long-term role needed in Mali recovery

Remember Mali. Or is it, in today’s fast-paced news cycle: Remember Mali?

The first statement is from the head of Mercy Corps, Jeremy Konyndyk, and is relevant both to today’s crisis in the war-torn African country and building a better future for it after the French-led intervention against Islamist extremists.

Konyndyk noted that the international limelight is already fading. “Restoring a degree of normality in northern Mali will mean dealing with a humanitarian emergency and building peace amid weak governance and worsening ethnic tensions,” he wrote recently in The Guardian newspaper.

Mercy Corps has been working in Mali since the middle of last year. Konyndyk’s message is that sustainable recovery requires skills in peacekeeping, not to mention persistence. And it’s only common sense, but the nature of public attention is fleeting. Governments and international aid agencies require long-term assistance.

While the circumstances cannot be more different, in Louisiana we’ve seen the problem of world attention turning away from a huge catastrophe, that of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

The wags at the State Capitol might chime in here that we’re still struggling with the governance part.

But recovery requires more persistence than even many well-established charities can provide. Ultimately, it is dependent not only on the vital security role of government, but on more-structured commitments to long-term assistance. Given the low level of infrastructure in Mali, that cannot be considered a short-term proposition.

As Konyndyk said, international aid must be focused on building resilience, a sustainable future for a Mali after the peacekeeper missions are gone.

Remember Mali? We hope so.

Comments

1) Comment by bourbon-soda - 24/02/2013

@InPville - Thanks. Re-reading the editorial brings out its Orwellian features. The problem is presented as one of aid rather than the reality that this would be getting into a war; even worse, a religious war with features of civil war. How many Americans want sons and daughters dead or crippled for dear old Mali? Also, nancying around any mention of Islam, or radical Islam (take your pick) as the, or even a, problem; and of France's problem with huge Islamic enclaves in their own country with concomitant possibility of civil unrest, to understate, should France oppose radical Islam in any meaningful way. This is a problem the France has brought on itself through its immigration policies.

2) Comment by InPVille - 24/02/2013

@tradewinns: "the french government is already calling for the U.S. to replace them when they leave in 4 months." -[]- The United States became embroiled in another country where the French had formerly been involved, Vietnam. That certainly turned out well. The United States is currently embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both situations would require a long-term role to create a stable nation. Mali, Iraq, and Afghanistan all involve intervention against Islamist extremists who by now have well learned that the United States is not willing to have it's blood shed in foreign entanglements over a long-term. There is also no evidence we have much of a clue at the methods of successful nation building. -[****]- @bourbon-soda: "The French work fewer hours per week and fewer weeks a year than do workers in the US, so there has to be unused economic capacity in France. Both countries are broke. A good Keynesian dose dose of military conscription and expenditure should have a salutary effect on the French economy." -[]- How true! For the French to have a military success would be a bright spot in an otherwise poor record. The French have preferred to utilize The Foreign Legion, fleshed out mostly by volunteers from other nations, rather than by it's own citizens. The Foreign Legion was employed in Vietnam and in North Africa including Mali perhaps. Beau Geste anyone?

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 24/02/2013

Europe is much more directly threatened than is the United States. France has a long history with Mali. The French work fewer hours per week and fewer weeks a year than do workers in the US, so there has to be unused economic capacity in France. Both countries are broke. A good Keynesian dose dose of military conscription and expenditure should have a salutary effect on the French economy. If the more directly threatened countries do not have the spine to deal with this, why should the US?

4) Comment by DiolaBagayoko - 23/02/2013

A contributing factor of the current crisis in Mali has been the fall of Kaddafi’s regime. It led to highly Sophisticated weapons falling into the hands of religious extremists, terrorists, and a few free lance mercenaries. Luckily for Mali, France and other thinking countries (including Chad in particular) realized that vast, open territories, literally in the heart of Africa, cannot be left in the hands of terrorists, religious extremists, and traffickers (of drugs, cigarettes, etc.). The centrally located Sahara region is an ideal place for launching attacks against most European countries and North America. A cocaine plane (a Boeing 727) was found (burned and abandoned) in this desert region of Mali a few years ago. The incident is dubbed “air cocaine” and no full explanation has been provided to date by the government. This incident represents the illustration, if one were needed, of the ideal distribution platform (or center) the region can become. In fact, reports are emerging that some illegal drug industry gangsters and big clients are working to prevent any involvement of governments of their respective countries in or contribution to the liberation of Mali, on the one hand, and the building of its infrastructure, on the other. It is this building that will require time, particularly in light of the fact that the terrorists have destroyed government buildings in Gao (City Hall, the Court building, the Market, and building of the security services). They have also mined many ruins and buildings, as well as other areas! To build the infrastructure of Mali, smart countries understood, is to enable Mali to secure its vast, desert territories in the future for the benefits of all (except, perhaps, the illegal drug dealers and their big partners or clients, self-righteous religious fanatics, and terrorists). I commend the Advocate for this highly thoughtful opinion.

5) Comment by bourbon-soda - 23/02/2013

My impression is that all that la belle France contributes to most United States efforts of this kind, is contempt salted with denial of use of French airspace. OTOH if they paid us for saving their chestnuts from the Nazis, the Marshall Plan, and holding Russia at bay, maybe we could afford to be their rent-a-cop. Oh, wait, they are broke after all our subsidies. Never mind.

6) Comment by tradewinns - 23/02/2013

the french government is already calling for the U.S. to replace them when they leave in 4 months. i'd like to say lets see just how stupid our government is, but i'm afraid i already know how stupid they are. we have no, zero, nada, none, nein connection with mali. it was a french colony with historical ties to france. we should not go streaming in as we are prone to do and be involved in another war and corresponding "nation building/rebuilding". lets allow france to show they are a nation with a soul and a commitment to restoring one of the nations they "ravaged" with their colonial rule. we need to be in mali as much as we needed to be in Nam.

7) Comment by [e-mail] - 23/02/2013

Nothing is more insidious than the term "long term assistance"; Mali is better left to Mali. However they want to live is up to them as long as they leave American interests alone then it's not our ball game. The French went in there for France, not Mali.