adminsoccer season.
Some of the vendors were just selling French flags with a few selling both French and Malian flags.
A number of motorists had French flags displayed in their cars.
Those interviewed said it was a small gesture of gratitude to France for sending its troops to fight and chase out Islamist militants who in the past ten months had already occupied half of Northern Mali and were advancing toward the capital Bamako.
One motorist was asked tongue in cheek whether he was not afraid that France would recolonise Mali, and smiling contentedly, he responded that he did not mind if France recolonised Mali.
He would in actual fact want them to do it, so that the militants would not come back.
My foot! Prophet Emmanuel Makandiwa, are we seeing the first fulfilment of your New Year’s eve prophecy about the recolonisation of some African countries?
With such statements, I understood how treacherous the French colonial policy of assimilation is to Africa’s peace and security.
However, this isn’t in any way giving a thumbs-up to terrorism, which has to be fought in a collective manner by a united international community.
I am also glad that outgoing African Union chairman, Benin President Boni Yayi was in Zimbabwe last Tuesday, January 15.
Benin is a former French colony.
It is also a member of the West African regional grouping Ecowas, which will be fighting alongside the French army in Mali, long after the French shot the first salvos.
I am happy that in his discussions with President Mugabe the importance of cherishing Africanism and also cherishing history did come up.
But, more of that later.
To the Malians and others of like mind, the last time I checked out the definitions of irony and double standards this is what I got from the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary respectively: “the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of the literal meaning”. And, “any set of principles applied differently to one group of people than to another, as an unwritten code permitting men greater sexual freedom than women”.
I ask naïve but fundamental questions because I find it ironic that Europe and the United States of America are fond of telling Africa that it is on the wrong side of history. It could be political, economic, social or cultural, Africa is always branded of being on the wrong side of history.
Whose history?
What is the wrong side of history? What is the right side of history? Who sets the standards?
When there is every sign that the recolonisation of Africa has become an active agenda for Europe and the US, just as it was in 1874, there is every reason to ask why Africa seems to be a willing participant under the guise of democracy, human rights, rule of law. Who then is on the wrong side of history?
Surprisingly, those who accuse Africa of being on the wrong side of history quickly forget that they have also told us that we have never entered the historical arena.
Thus they always take it upon themselves to make us participate in these opposing contestations.
Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 remarks while in the Senegalese capital Dakar legitimise this Eurocentric thinking. Sarkozy said, “the African has never really entered into history”.
Surprisingly, that very year, Sarkozy allegedly received 40 million pounds (50 million euros) from slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi for his presidential campaign.
And, when opportunity presented itself for him to erase that historical encounter with Africa, Sarkozy was the first European president to send troops to illegally invade Libya in March 2011 under the guise of enforcing a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Now as we watch events unfolding in Mali, France once again is ahead of its allies; the major reason being that French presence on the continent is boosted by military bases in a number of its former colonies.
In the past decade, France has also fought in countries like Chad and Cote d’Ivoire.
So, what is in it for France? If Mali was indeed that strategic, why did France and its allies procrastinate for nine months before intervening militarily?
When the same militants they are fighting today reduced Timbuktu, one of Africa’s household historical cities to rubble, why was it not necessary for them to intervene?
Another irony is how dramatically French president Francois Hollande abandoned the “Mr Nice Guy” persona last Friday as he sent French forces on military escapades in two different African locations: Somalia and Mali.
Was this sheer coincidence that the military operations were carried out more or less the same weekend despite distance?
Was it also sheer coincidence that the plot in both scenarios is not different from Libya, as it has become increasingly clear that France is not acting alone?
NATO allies who played a key role in Libya in 2011 are once again heavily involved in Mali, overtly and covertly.
As the “Battle for Mali” continues unabated, both the European Union and the US have indicated their unequivocal support for the French invasion.
The same way they co-operated with France in the botched Somali rescue operation!
President Barack Obama admitted to Congress that the “United States combat aircraft briefly entered Somali airspace to support the rescue operation, if needed “these aircraft did not employ weapons.” Obama claimed that “the operation was warranted in order to further US national security interests…”
The farce is that Western coalition forces are now using war on terror as a password to militarily enter any country.
It was widely reported at the end of 2012 that the US would be sending military forces to at least 35 African countries (more than half of the continent) at the beginning of 2013.
Could Mali be a smokescreen to legitimise the entry of these forces on African soil, even as we reiterate that terrorism has no place on the continent, and anywhere.
We also want to know what the French secret agent Denis Allex was doing in Somalia before his capture in 2009?
The bombardment against Islamist insurgents in northern Mali reveals the age-old roadmap – they are doing exactly what they did in Libya.
The French intervention also saw British premier David Cameron admitting that the UK would support the French military mission “to help recapture northern Mali”. Cameron and Hollande agreed that “the situation in Mali poses a real threat to international security given terrorist activity there.”
The unsaid, which is now reality is that NATO and its allies are now very active on African soil, and the Malian saga also sees history repeating itself — the African Union has been upstaged by NATO, again!
Using France, they give us what they believe to be the most compelling explanations for the invasion of Mali: this was a desperate situation for the “international” community. There was no way they could watch the Islamist militants take over Mali, and using it as a base to conduct terrorist activities against the “West”.
They also argue that they did not force themselves on Mali. This is an operation that is being carried out at the request of the Malian government and with the blessing of the international community, and the regional grouping Ecowas.
But, was Le Parisian newspaper off the mark when it wrote: “If Sarkozy had Libya, Hollande will have Mali?”
After Mali, what will Nato’s next port of call be, and what is the AU doing about it?
But, with the hostage crisis in Algeria still playing out at the time of going to press, it is not difficult to see the on-coming inferno on the continent.
NATO and its allies are angry. Their ego has been bruised. You don’t want to play with a wounded lion. Japanese premier Shinzo Abe said it point blank that the hostage taking was an “unforgivable act”.
NATO member states are very clear about their interests on the continent.
They claim that the Islamist insurgents are a threat to peace and security in the West, not in Africa.
If what they are doing is for their permanent interests on the continent, Africa needs to ask the West: who “created”, funded and armed Al-Qaeda and other terror groups? Who is behind the proliferation of arms of war in North Africa and the Sahel region?
They also need to remind NATO that before September 11, 2001, Africans were the first victims of al-Qaeda’s terrorist activities. The twin bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 claimed dozens of African lives, but NATO did not act immediately.
As the bombardment in Mali takes the shape of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, the civilian body count will cease to be an issue.
The Malians who believe that it is no big deal if France recolonises them will soon realise that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Algeria, which allowed France to use its airspace in the Malian strike, is realising the complexity of the issue through its handling of last Wednesday’s hostage crisis.
Malians should also not be taken in by simplistic statements by US defence secretary Leon Panetta that the US “will not send ground troops, it is however providing intelligence — gathering assistance to French forces”. Panetta did not also rule out having US aircraft landing in Mali “for logistical and airlifting support”.
Online Reporter