Radio Netherlands Worldwide

SSO Login

More login possibilities:

Close
  • Facebook
  • Flickr
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
Home
Thursday 17 April  
Military camp set up at Timbuktu airport on 30 January
Map
Kigali, Rwanda
Kigali, Rwanda

Forget the AU, where are the Malians in Mali?

Published on : 2 February 2013 - 6:00am | By RNW Africa Desk (Photo: Eric Feferberg/AFP)
More about:

On the blog beat

Sunny Ntayombya is a journalist and blogger working with a Rwandan English newspaper. He has an avid interest in global socio-political affairs with a particular fascination for the issues besieging the African Great Lakes region. He lives in Kigali, Rwanda. You can read more on his blog The Thing Is and follow him on Twitter @sannykigali.

RNW's Africa Desk is proud to feature as part of its content local bloggers who have a knack for expressing their unique perspectives, independent thoughts and engaging stories. The opinions written here are those of the author and not intended to reflect those of RNW as an institution.

Joseph Rwagatare wrote a great opinion piece in The New Times on 15 January titled 'Where is the AU in Mali?'. In it, he scoffed at the African Union, wondering why France was the one helping the Malian army push back the Islamist rebels who’d overrun half the West African country.

By Sunny Ntayombya, Kigali

He argues that it has become “a cherished principle of the African Union to call upon fellow Africans to come to the aid of countries in various kinds of trouble”. According to him, it has worked in places like South Sudan and Somalia. And he’s right. However, I depart from his central thesis, which is that African countries have a responsibility to intervene in the affairs of ‘weak states’.

When one looks at the most successful countries in the world, it’s obvious that their citizens figured out how to live together. Compare Rwanda to, say, the Central African Republic. Each had serious political problems to deal with (and in our case a genocide as well). But while Rwandans muddled along, figuring out how to live together (and introducing the term ‘Gacaca’ to the legal lexicon) and, slowly but surely, building a country that is its citizens can be proud of, the Central African Republic has constantly called upon its allies to maintain the status quo.

While this has given the people of Bangui a semblance of ‘calm’, it is more like a ‘calm before a storm’. If we are to count just how many times rebels have reached the capital city’s outskirts in the last decade, one can only imagine how stormy it has been.

Now, imagine this scenario. What would happen if, instead of getting external assistance from the French military, the Central African government had to face up to its own weaknesses? The army would get thrashed and the rebels would either negotiate with the defeated government or take up the reins of power. Either way, the status quo would change In the most recent case of civil unrest, President Bozize negotiated with the rebels after realizing that ‘his’ Gallic cavalry was not going to come to his rescue (and after evacuating his family to Kigali – if Twitter reports are to be believed).

I’m a firm believer of the ‘hands-off’ approach to conflict resolution in Africa. Not because I’m a cruel person, who doesn’t care about the lives of my fellow Africans, but because I honestly believe that unless each and every country is allowed to find its own development path whether economically, politically or socially, it will not be able to become a stable, viable nation.

The nations that impose these status quos (such as France, the UK, the US and other single powers in the world) are the same that have suffered revolutions, palace coups, civil wars and every kind of social unrest you can name. What these issues did has to improve their governance and systems of political participation. Out of conflict came solutions. But it seems that the same won’t be allowed here in Africa.

Let us imagine a worst-case scenario. Imagine if the rebels reached Bamako and imposed Sharia law. Either the citizenry would have become OK with it or a fifth column would have arisen to take on the unpopular government. Either way, Malians would have had their future in their hands.

This wouldn’t have become so if the African Union had intervened by halting the rebellion and propping the present government. Let’s be honest here, even if the African Union had intervened militarily, it still would’ve imposed foreign diktat – thereby stifling Malian political development.

Sometimes you need to go backwards to move forwards. But if we always intervene, how will lessons be learnt?

And while we are at it, perhaps it’s time we stopped giving so much credence to the artificial borders that have held us prisoner so long. Perhaps it’s time that we allowed certain communities to find their own way forward. I mean, so what if Mali is presently divided in two? Perhaps it should have been from the very beginning.

While I understand that the laissez-faire approach will probably not become AU policy anytime soon, I’m afraid that we’ll end up forever treating symptoms instead of diseases unless we embrace it. 

This post was originally published on the author's blog.

Discussion

Bush Gate 2 February 2013 - 11:16am / Rwanda

Right on Sunny. Well said.

Post new comment

Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options