The Whiff of Conflict Grows in a Divided Mali – NYTimes.com

No alternative to war, according to a top UN Peacekeeping official?

In recent weeks, for the first time, a broad-based international consensus has formed that war could soon be waged in the vast desert and savanna of northern Mali, an area roughly the size of France. Planning for such an operation remains embryonic. Who would take part? When would it occur? Who would command it?

via The Whiff of Conflict Grows in a Divided Mali – NYTimes.com.

Advertisements
Tagged ,

4 thoughts on “The Whiff of Conflict Grows in a Divided Mali – NYTimes.com

  1. marianorfila says:

    The questions for such question above are yet to be solved. “On Oct. 12, the United Nations Security Council, led by France, passed a resolution declaring its “readiness” to respond to Malian demands for an international force and asked that a detailed plan be submitted in 45 days.” Mention in the New York Times in that same article. Until solutions are still being decided, this is a serious concern for the population in Mali itself. The United Nations Security Council is urging West African countries to speed up preparations for a military intervention in northern Mali. There are concerns that the conflict might spread to other countries (http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/mali-conflict-al-qaida-children-military-intervention/1532846.html). A large numbers of northerners have fled to south or to neighboring countries, and students and teacher are unable to attend schools.Education Cluster created by the U.N. said that “We are very concerned that education is not being provided for all children. We’re concerned that funds need to be made available to assist children, particularly those who have been displaced by the fighting, have not been made available, especially for education in this emergency response that we and other actors on the ground here are trying to respond to.” Not only is important to solve the issue but also to assist the population in such crisis.

  2. Matthew Merrill says:

    It’s fascinating to see other international actors, such as France, preparing for military intervention in another country when US military actions have been so heavily criticized. Admittedly, there are major points of difference but it seems that the US is somewhat reticent to lead out in a military strike and is only willing to help in a supportive role. Secretary Clinton, who is currently in Algeria, has said that the US continues to seek a solution to ending the conflict in Mali. It is difficult to imagine the awful things that are happening in Northern Mali, and yet there is hope that such terrible happenings will soon be stopped by multilateral cooperation on the international stage. What would it be like in the US living under the constant threat of violence, killing, and abuse? Would military intervention be justified as Mr. Christofides states? One would think so.

    An article describing Secretary Clinton’s remarks.
    http://www.eurasiareview.com/30102012-us-continues-to-seek-resolution-to-conflict-in-mali-clinton/

  3. brianmedwards says:

    I believe, like most people, military intervention is inevitable in Mali. One way to do it, in my opinion, is by show. Troops can be mobilized to the borders of the territory and while there begin training in anti-guerrilla fighting. The troops should be people that live in western Africa. The trainers though should be from the United Nations, especially France since they are so determined to free this territory. It will be a show until al Qaeda strikes which gives the UN forces their chance to go in and take over the territory.
    Much of this idea is a mixture from Dday in WWII and Clinton’s training in Yugoslavia. We can learn from these past military interventions to help Mali get rid of the terrorists. Here is some additional insight on the issue. http://africasacountry.com/2012/05/22/mali-better-shame-than/ It explains the situation in a negative context.

  4. If military action really is inevitable, then Algeria’s role in this becomes much more important. The same officials that are arguing for eventual military action are adamant that nothing will happen without Algeria’s support (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jj8bM-NOwawzmlYG3ATF-kO31hLw?docId=b78bbd92e93c4a898ae673b488322d8f). The international community and Sec. Clinton are definitely pressing hard to win over the Algerian government, but what if their efforts fail? Algeria would have to provide many of the needed troops and intelligence services. It might consider providing lesser resources, citing its own domestic fight against extremists, and then wait to see what the U.S., France, and others will do. If the only solution is war, the rest of the world will have to figure out another way to stage the conflict. I’m not sure the Security Council is ready to do that. This looks to be an important test of the UN’s ability to take decisive and timely action against a threat that everyone recognizes.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: