Intervention is necessary

Editorial

The conflict in Mali is almost a year old but it has finally captured global attention because of significant inroads made in just the past several days by Islamist rebels and their allies. The Islamists, who are connected to al-Qaeda, have controlled most of the north of the country for months, forcing 400,000 to flee their repressive, brutal regime of hardline Islamic religious law, enforced with all the mercy embodied by punishment by amputation.

In recent days, the rebels, who are a combination of Islamists and secular groups, including Tuareg, have made advances toward the Malian capital of Bamako, threatening the very existence of the government and, indeed, the state as a functioning entity. It is a conflict made worse by extreme poverty, the fierce competition for oil and mineral resources, and the collapse of Libya.

Despite the expressed reluctance of the French government to get involved in the internal affairs of its former colonies, a week ago the French military joined the fight against the Islamist rebels in Mali. On Monday, the Canadian government announced that it would provide the French-Malian alliance with only minimal assistance, including the short-term use of a Canadian C-17 transport aircraft for a noncombat role and military logistical support.

France is encouraging African nations to take up the cause, and seven African states had made commitments as of press time. Last week, the head of the African Union was in Canada and urged NATO countries to help prevent an Islamist victory in Mali. As well, a United Nations Security Council resolution last month urged other countries to come to the aid of the Malian government.

The French military, fresh from years of fighting in Afghanistan, was understandably hesitant to get involved in another foreign conflict. But the stunning advances of the Islamists in the past several days, after a period of relative stasis in the conflict, reduced French resistance to the intervention. The calls by the Malian government, the UN and the African Union for action also may have erased French concerns over the implications of unilateralism.

Mali is on the verge of becoming one of the world’s failed states and a significant base for al-Qaeda and its partners deep into West Africa. The issue, ultimately, is not really about Mali. It is about Western democracies and the emerging countries of Africa and, really, everyone who cares about such things, to ensure beyond any doubt that advances by Islamist extremists will be countered and stanched everywhere and at any time. This is supposedly why we went to Afghanistan.

On the one hand, we can look with hindsight at the successes and failures that Western intervention has had in Afghanistan. On the other hand, we cannot simply wash our hands of the potential for a country with the strategic location of Mali, in northwest Africa, to descend into an effective terrorist enclave.

For their part, using the theatrical language in which they revel, the rebels warn that French intervention has opened the “gates of hell.” Perhaps. But hopefully it will be the Islamists themselves who pass through the entrance.

For Israelis, Zionists and Jews, the equation may be easiest to understand. For well more than a generation, the world has looked at the conflict between Israel and its neighbors as a territorial conflict over real estate. It may be that, to some extent, but beyond that – and certainly since the advent of Hamas and its elevation to leadership in the region – the conflict has been one of theocratic fundamentalism versus a pluralistic democratic state. In both the case of Mali and the case of Israel’s enemies, the theocratic fundamentalists happen to be Islamists. This is not a coincidence, of course. There have been other kinds in the past and will no doubt be others in the future, but today’s most dangerous, violent and expansionist fundamentalism is Islamism. At the risk of overstating with language that seems from another era, Islamism, in fact, threatens our entire way of life: democracy, pluralism and the acceptance of alternative theologies, separation of religion and government, equality of people, especially the genders, peaceful negotiation as a means to resolve conflict and, put simply, everything individuals in the West enjoy, from basic human rights to music and a glass of wine. Islamist fundamentalists oppose all this, not in half-measures, but through brutal enforcement of sharia law.

Canadian soldiers went to the other side of the world to fight Islamists who had taken over Afghanistan. The results are not perfect, nor, probably did our government expect they would be when the original determination was made to engage. But, for whatever flaws there are in the specifics of that case, they cannot be extrapolated to rule out Canadian involvement in every comparable scenario.

Yes, there are certainly a host of issues to consider before a government undertakes a military engagement of any level. But it may not be too extreme to say that we owe it, in some sense, to those who gave their lives or limbs in Afghanistan, to ensure that the fight, which has now moved to Mali, is not abandoned, especially given Western countries’ failure to secure Libya’s weapons caches when Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown.

The government of Mali has asked for foreign assistance. The UN Security Council has endorsed the concept. So far, France has been the only country courageous enough to answer the call. The coming days will indicate whether or not the French alone can resist the expansion of the Islamists in Mali. If they are able to put short work to the rebels, the world will owe France a debt of gratitude.

If a quick victory does not appear imminent, the world will face a conundrum: object lessons in recent years will dissuade any country from getting involved in a conflict that appears likely to become protracted. Yet, if the French fight with the Islamists becomes protracted, this is exactly when multilateralism will be most desperately needed.

^TOP