Imperialism And The Political Crisis In Mali: Is Foreign Intervention Possible?
Junta leader requests assistance in defeating secessionist movement, Islamists in the north
On April 5 the leader of the Mali coup appealed to the “international community” for help in reversing the military gains made by the Movement for the National Liberation of Azawad (MNLA). The following day on April 6 the MNLA declared itself independent of the government based in Bamako in the south of the country.
The crisis in Mali reached a critical level when junior military officers headed by Amadou Sanogo staged a mutiny and seized political power on March 21-22. Since this take over by the National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and the State (CNRDR), the usurpation of authority in Bamako from former President Amadou Toumani Toure has been met with regional and international condemnation.
Although the CNRDR said that the junior officers took action because of the failure of the central government to effectively halt the encroachment of the MNLA and the Ansar Dine Islamists in the north, after the putsch additional cities fell to the Azawad secessionists making a declaration of liberation from the rest of the country inevitable.
Capt. Sanogo has had close ties with the United States military through the Pentagon’s “anti-terrorism” training programs and joint military exercises with the Malian army. The U.S. has viewed the Mali government as an important partner in its renewed effort to increase its influence over large sections of the African continent under the guise of working with these states to assist in providing security and stability.
On April 5 Capt. Sanogo granted interviews to the French dailies Le Monde and Liberation indicating that his CNRDR regime would need assistance in regaining control over the areas seized by the MNLA and Ansar Dine. Both of these organizations are based among the Tuareg people of the north of Mali who have historically been marginalized from the political dispensation of the post-independence period.
According to Capt. Sanogo, “If the great powers are bale to cross oceans to battle fundamentalist structures in Afghanistan, what’s stopping them coming to us? Our committee wants the best for the country.”
Sanogo went on to say that “The enemy is known and it is not in Bamako. If a force was to intervene it would have to do so in the north.”
In raising the specter of an Islamist take over in the north, the coup leader is attempting to provide the rationale for western military intervention. In efforts aimed at appeasing both the regional Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the former French colonial powers along with the White House, Sanogo has voluntarily agreed to hand over power to a civilian interim government.
This sudden willingness to step down is related to the sanctions imposed on the country through ECOWAS which had closed the borders of the landlocked country and froze Malian assets through the regional central bank. Both France and the U.S. have threatened to suspend aid to the CNRDR consequently choking off the regime from much needed monetary, technical and military support, at least for the time-being.
Nonetheless, with the interests of the U.S. and France being very much tied to the political developments on the African continent, the references by Sanogo to the threat of Islamic rule in West Africa resonates in ruling circles in the imperialist states. Compounding this tendency toward greater Pentagon and NATO intervention in Africa, there are already military relationships between several North and West African states with the governments of Western Europe and North America.
Sanogo emphasized that “Today, it’s no longer a simple rebellion. It is Islamist groups basing themselves in the north of the country. If Mali is left alone to face this problem, Africa and the world will face the consequences.”
Regional Responses to the Mali Situation
Most observers of African affairs agree that the U.S.-NATO war against Libya that began in March 2011 resulted in massive dislocation and political instability in various neighboring states. Many Tuareg fighters had been aligned with the Libyan Jamahiriya under the former leader Muammar Gaddafi.
These veterans of the Libyan loyalist resistance re-entered northern Mali in late 2011 and bolstered the longtime rebellion in the north of the country. By early 2012 it was obvious that the war in northern Mali had gone beyond anything seen since the independence of the former French colony in 1960.
The Tuareg people are spread out within several West and North African states including Niger, Burkina Faso, northern Nigeria and Algeria. In Mauritania on April 8, a meeting of regional governments revealed the differences of opinion that leaders have in regard to handling the recently proclaimed independence by the MNLA in northern Mali.
Niger stressed that the MNLA rebellion must be put down militarily before any negotiations could take place in relations to the grievances of the Tuareg people. Algeria on the other hand cautioned against outside interference in the internal affairs of Mali.
Mohamed Bazoum, the Foreign Minister of Niger, said in Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania during the regional meeting that “We need to redress the balance of forces on the ground before we can talk about negotiations. We need to organize a confrontation with the terrorist groups. Mali’s north must be cleared of terrorism and it seems to me we have the ideal opportunity.” (Reuters, April 9)
Algeria, the region’s largest political and economic power, articulated through its Delegate Minister for African Affairs, Abdelkader Messahel, that “The solution can only be a political one. It cannot be the result of a military effort which could instead worsen an already complex and precarious situation.” (Reuters, April 9)
This situation is further complicated with the kidnapping of seven Algerian diplomats in Mali which was purportedly carried out by the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO). The group said it “officially claims responsibility for the kidnapping of the Algerian consul and six of his team in Gao,” located in the northeast of Mali.
MUJAO in December had claimed responsibility for the abduction in western Algeria of two Spanish citizens and one Italian humanitarian relief worker. A spokesperson for the MUJAO told journalists that “we are carrying out negotiations with the Spanish and Italian governments.” Reports indicate that the organization is demanding $39 million for the release of the three Europeans.
There was a report on April 8 that the Europeans held by the MUJAO had been released but diplomats in Mauritania at the regional summit on Mali could not confirm this assertion. The MUJAO group is said to be a breakaway faction from the Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) which is fighting in several states in North Africa.
This same organization, MUJAO, claimed responsibility in March for attacks against police officers in Tamanrasset in southern Algeria that resulted in the injuring of 23 people.
International Implications of Further Imperialist Intervention
Although the governments in France and the U.S. have not yet called for direct intervention in Mali, the current situation provides the hallmarks for Pentagon and NATO involvement. Instability in the central government in Mali, a secessionist movement taking control of the north of the country and the presence of Islamist forces in area of conflict as well as throughout the regions of West and North Africa, could very well trigger a direct or indirect presence by the West.
Even though the sanctions imposed by ECOWAS were said to have been lifted, the pro-western regimes of Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso have hinted at the utilization of military action as a last resort to resolving the crisis. On April 9, the Algerian government announced that it was considering closing its borders with Mali and has rejected the MNLA proclamation of independence calling for the maintenance of the territorial integrity of the West African state.
What anti-war and anti-imperialist organizations in the U.S. must consider is that the impact of indirect or direct intervention by the White House in the Malian crisis would certainly lead to more bloodshed and instability. In fact the current political impasse derives from U.S.-NATO war policy in Libya through the destruction of the Gaddafi government and consequent threat of partition in that oil-producing country.
Therefore activists in the U.S. must stress the necessity for the people of Mali in cooperation with regional interests to work out a viable solution to the national question inside that country. Another “humanitarian” interventionist war, like that in Libya, can only breed additional death and destruction and enhance the role and influence of imperialism in Africa.
Abayomi Azikiwe is a dedicated activist, organizer of the Workers World Party and editor of the Pan-African News Wire, an international electronic press service designed to foster intelligent discussion on the affairs of African people throughout the continent and the world. The press agency was founded in January of 1998 and has published thousands of articles and dispatches in newspapers, magazines, journals, research reports, blogs and websites throughout the world. The PANW represents the only daily international news source on pan-african and global affairs.
It should be obvious that the Islamist groups that are now destbilising Mali are not the same Libyan Touaregs who fought on behalf of the Gaddafi government. The Islamist/Al Qaeda groups that attacked Northern Mali are no more than NATO surrogates armed with weapons provided by NATO client states such as Qatar.They just moved South with those weapons.
It’s also obvious how politically naive Sanogo is in terms of the geopolitics of the imperialist West–headed by the U.S.
Here’s Sh’kka’s film about Tuaregs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLlbXBZKjy0 (Part One); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Yr7xnYP80 (Part Two). And http://2012.sensoria.org.uk/programme/blue-desert/.
But if they stand for independence of Tuaregs, and Tuaregs seem to mean seriously about their own state of Azawad, then I share that particular view with them. After all, Acharatoumane and Sh’kka are Tuaregs.
Hakomi said: “I don’t think a Tuareg homeland’s as important to the Tuareg as being free to live unhindered, not bound to any government”.
Who are we to judge what is appropriate for Tuaregs? If they want independent Azawad after 50 years of rebellion, let them have it!
Who created those borders and existing “Nations”? Colonial powers: England, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium… Those borders were exactly meant to be eternal source of conflict.
Serb expansionists were saying “Montenegro can’t do on its own”, “without Serbia they are nothing”, “Montenegrins are Serbs” etc.
Montenegro is doing just fine at the moment, some 5 years after gaining independence.
Tuaregs have been fighting for Azawad for more than 50 years. They will certainly achieve more national freedom in their own state, even if Azawad consists only of Northern Mali, and doesn’t include parts of Niger, Libya, Algiers, Mauritania and Burkina Faso, where Tuaregs also live.
Should we deprive Kurds in Northern Iraq of their autonomy just because it doesn’t include Kurdish areas in Turkey, Iran and Syria?
What about Eritrea? They should have remained part of Ethiopia? Because WE think it’s better for Eritreans? Now Ethiopia, an American satellite in the region, regularly provokes incidents on Eritrean side of the border, trying to regain at least some parts of Eritrea, if not all. (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Proxy-War-Stokes-Tension-Between-Ethiopia-Eritrea-143416866.html)
Scottish people are in the process of gaining independence. Tell them that it’s better to remain under Anglo-Saxon rule. I don’t think so. The same arguments as in case of Montenegro (“they can’t survive alone”) are being utilized by Anglo-Saxon elite to deter Scots from their own Republic (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/11/a-stand-alone-scotland.html).
If Scots believe they can do well in self-governed Republic of Scotland, and they want it, we can only wish them all the best, and not insist on trying to convince them to keep submitting themselves to the Queen of England.
Who’s next? Six Counties (Northern Ireland)? Euskadi? Corsica? Sardigna? Quebec? Interestingly, main movements for independence in those places are all socialist.
We should look forward to dissolution not only of Western Empires, but their junior partners around the world as well, especially “Nations” with bizarre colonial borders. Be it Western Sahara, occupied by Western ally Morocco, or Mali (look at those borders, it’s ridiculous), or Sudan or any other against-the-will-of-people-imperialist-created state in Africa.
There is example of successful merger of two territories in Africa into one state, that is TanZania (Tanganyika and Zanzibar), but it was created by free will of people living there.
Perfect solution for all problems would be, I guess, World Socialist Union, but until that happens, and for that goal to be achieved it is necessary to allow for self-determination of different ethnic groups. At least they should enjoy true autonomy in their native lands. It is a minimum prerequisite for justice around the world.
Tuaregs don’t need Western or Malian baby-sitters. Whether Tuaregs succeed or fail to organize a viable national state, it’s not upon us to undermine their efforts, patronize them and judge them negatively, even before they got a chance to prove themselves.
Moussa Ag Acharatoumane
http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/battle-mali’s-north
“MNLA spokesman, Moussa Ag Acharatoumane, is clear about their aspirations: “We demand self-determination for Azawad. That means: independence. Is our action a challenge to Mali’s sovereignty? Well, when you look at the matter in more depth, you will find that Azawad and Mali have never been united. We have been asking for freedom in our own state for a long time. But it has never been taken into consideration”.
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE80Q0AW20120127?sp=true
“The rebels have confirmed the attack on Aguelhoc, but, Moussa Ag Acharatoumane, a spokesman for the MNLA, denied any links with the other groups mentioned by the ministry.
“This is the usual rhetoric. They are losing ground so now they are trying link us to the terrorists. But everyone knows that is not true. This has never been the case,” the Europe-based spokesman told Reuters by telephone”.
“At the end of this inaugural meeting [in Timbuktu], two of the MNA’s leaders, Moussa Ag Acharatoumane and Boubacar Ag Fadil, were imprisoned for treasonous activities damaging to the territorial integrity of the state [Mali]. They soon became Facebook heroes, a cause célèbre among the youth of the Tuareg diaspora. After numerous demonstrations and petitions they were freed. Acharatoumane and his fellow revolutionaries had already set about disseminating the message of revolution among the younger demographic of the northern deserts. Their work resulted in several small demonstrations in Kidal, Menaka and Timbuktu, that occurred around the same time as the launch of the MNA”.
http://thinkafricapress.com/mali/causes-uprising-northern-mali-tuareg.
I’m sure that all of you will disagree with some statements in that article, particularly those that highlight complex Qaddafi-Tuareg relations. Well, I think it’s very informative piece, based on verifiable facts.
Tuaregs (MNLA) themselves appointed Ag Acharatoumane as their spokesperson in Paris.
http://www.mnlamov.net/medias/47-medias.html
Again, I’m not defending Sh’kka and Ag Acharatoumane, but for you, the “real” Tuaregs are only those who worship Qaddafi. My stance is that Tuaregs have sovereign right for independent state of Azawad, regardless of their affiliation to Jamahiriya and affection for late Libyan Leader Qaddafi.
We’ll all agree, in words at least, that Palestinians should have right for independent state, be it on entire territory of Palestine, or 1948. or 1967. borders.
But, “activists” who denied Croats the right to get out of Yugoslavia, or Eritreans to split with Ethiopia, deny Irish and Scots the right to break away from United Kingdom, deny Basques right to Euskadi independent of Spain and France and deny Tuaregs the right to finally repair colonial injustice and create independent Azawad – those “activists”, many of them “leftist”, whatever their reasons may be – are in denial of freedom for Palestine as well, even if not aware of it.
Let Tuaregs create their state of Azawad first, then we’ll be able to judge their achievements.
Miro said,
“Quebec can not survive without Canada”
From my perspective as a First Nations woman, the French have no right to say what’s to be done with our land. The land doesn’t belong to them or any colonialist.
We never had the concept of land ownership before white settlers and their armies drove us from our homes. Some tribes were farmers but the plains and arctic people were nomadic like the Tuareg.
If you are anti-imperialist, please approach situations in Canada, the USA, Central and South America from the perspective of the indigenous people who have been here for over 50,000 years. That’s the only land rights discussion that’s legitimate.
I live in the midst of a revolutionary struggle every day so I don’t speak of the Tuareg as you do. I speak as a sister with dark skin who knows that the only agenda imperialists have in relation to us is to either enslave us or kill us. The worst massacres happened after we thought we made gains. Imperialists don’t take defeat well. Coming from a warrior culture I’m not afraid of a fight but the Tuareg have been led into a trap and they’re in danger. It was too easy for them to take the North.
Thank you Hakomi. Your comment is very helpful in understanding succession issues in North, South and Central America. The indigenous population are never considered in the equation. Unless they are, arguments for succession are purely imperialist in nature and not in the spirit of genuine revolution.
Imperial colonizers disputing land rights and ‘their’ sovereignty is absurd. They live on stolen land while the indigenous population are confined to concentration camp-like reserves or are being genocided to make way for mining, power, oil or farming corporations, as we see happening in Africa.
See the maps below.
Map of US colonial expansion and corresponding mass genocide of the indigenous population with dates. The languages were lost because the people were exterminated. That is not mentioned, of course.
Tribal groups alive today. Their boundaries have nothing to do with the imperialist-created boundaries. Neither are they rigid. There are no “border guards” nor any concept of nation-states. Therefore it is understandable that their perception of such “disputes” would be divergent from an imperialists’ perspective.
Pushed to the Edge of Extinction
http://www.gcc.ca/pdf/INT000000005.pdf
I’m still not convinced that The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) was imperialist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_libération_du_Québec
Hakomi said: “From my perspective as a First Nations woman, the French have no right to say what’s to be done with our land. The land doesn’t belong to them or any colonialist”.
See, history sometimes offers sarcastic outcome. Case of Armenians (http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/armenian_genocide.php) is somewhat similar to the case of First Nations of Quebec and Canada.
Armenians used to constitute majority of people in Eastern Turkey, around Van lake, so called Old Armenia, area which is today entirely inhabited by Kurds. As we all know, Kurds don’t have any national rights in present day Turkey, even their language is forbidden. Does it mean that Turkey should be allowed to continue oppressing Kurds and denying their basic human and national rights, ’cause it’s not originally Kurdish land anyway? And there is no way for that injustice, genocide over Armenians, in which Kurds as Otoman servants participated heavily, to be repaired. Just because Armenians are not able to reclaim their native lands doesn’t mean that rights of Kurds, which replaced Armenians in Eastern Turkey (Western Armenia, if you like), don’t have to be respected.
The same is applicable on French Quebecois.
.
Please, see this: http://www.rocler.qc.ca/turp/eng/Road/Road.htm (Bloc Quebecois: The Road of Sovereignty):
“On March 20, 1985, the Parti Québécois government then in power in Québec became the first in Canada to recognize the legal existence of native nations and their right to self-government. It is generally agreed that the living conditions of Québec natives are superior to those of other native peoples across Canada”
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
Case of Louis Riel, a francophone Metis provides good answer of who is imperialist in Canada.
In my opinion, it’s more important to satisfy people’s national sentiments, then to keep them in some multinational “unions” created against the will of people and full of internal conflicts, as was Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, even if those federations in theory represent some romantic dream of brotherhood amongst different nations. In reality, Soviet Union represented Russian hegemony, and Yugoslavia represented Serb hegemony.
Croatia is now independent, and I’m very happy to have my own national state, even though it is very corrupt. But only there I enjoy all possible freedoms and benefits. There I can do something. Now, despite the dark fascist episode from WWII, Croatia is the only country in Europe that provides guaranteed place for Gipsy MP, among other minorities, thanks to positive discrimination legislation. It still doesn’t mean anything, but… Yes, We Can.
Fair solution in Americas would be return of all non-native inhabitants to Europe and other respective continents. It’s impossible. Nevertheless, it is possible to preserve Quebecois Nation from being assimilated into English-speaking surroundings. French-speaking population is in decline in all parts of Canada for decades. Quebec is the last line of defense for francophone.
Here http://www.global-economics.ca/dth.chap7.htm is excellent analysis, written by English speaking Canadian, on impact that Quebec’s independence would produce on First Nations.
“Canadians get a distorted impression of the Quebec government’s relations with the aboriginal community because of all the bad press over Oka and Kahnawake. In fact, Quebec has been something of a pioneer in settling land claims and establishing self-government”.
“In a review of the treatment of aboriginal people in different jurisdictions prepared for the National Assembly committee on sovereignty, University of Ottawa law professor Bradford Morse concludes that Quebec has been more favourable to aboriginal peoples than other provinces. More land has been transferred to aboriginal people than in other provinces. The gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, when it comes to income, education and other social indicators is actually smaller in Quebec than it is elsewhere in Canada. No other province makes as great an effort to ensure the survival of aboriginal languages and in supporting aboriginal educational initiatives than Quebec. Not everyone would agree with Morse, but his conclusions still make it difficult to contrast Quebec’s backwardness with our own enlightenment on such issues”.
It’s part of “Dividing the House: Preparing for a Canada without Quebec” at http://www.global-economics.ca/dividingthehouse.toc.htm. Strongly recommend.
There is a long history of francophone discontent over British rule in Quebec, it didn’t start with FLQ and Bloc Quebecois: FLQ and Bloc Quebecois are not the cause, rather the consequence of that discontent.
About Tuareg: this is first time in history they are so united in fight for Azawad, under MNLA. I really don’t care who is their spokesperson. Whoever it is, I’ll still support free and independent state of Azawad.
Hakomi said: “The worst massacres happened after we thought we made gains. Imperialists don’t take defeat well. Coming from a warrior culture I’m not afraid of a fight but the Tuareg have been led into a trap and they’re in danger. It was too easy for them to take the North”.
Finally we agree on some issues. Indeed, “it was too easy for them to take the North”, but I would still like to believe that it’s due to increased unity and determination of Tuaregs to establish independent Azawad, and not a result of Western imperialist trap.
People have the right to self-determination, if based on historical grounds and population figures, or they don’t. For justice to be served, we can not selectively apply it to Palestine, and deny it to Quebec, Scotland or Azawad.
For better understanding of what I mean, I’ll add this: I love England, London is one of my favorite places in the world – but I dislike United Kingdom. I adore Castilla, Andalucia, Asturia, Galicia, Valencia, Aragon, Catalonia and Euskadi – but I don’t like Kingdom of Spain. I can say I feel the same about Canada and Quebec, Mali and Azawad.
Miro, I added a document to my comment, “Pushed to the Edge of Extinction” http://www.gcc.ca/pdf/INT000000005.pdf
This is one of many available online statements of what the indigenous people are asking for.
American Indians Genocide
http://www.danielnpaul.com/AmericanIndiansGenocide.html
End colonial policies of genocide
http://www.parti-communiste.ca/?p=1082
ROTINONHSONNION:WE INTERNATIONAL PETITION
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/iroquois/
Mohawk Nation
http://www.mohawknationnews.com/
I understand what you mean, but my point was that First Nations enjoy at least a little bit better recognition and protection in Quebec, then in the rest of Canada, let alone USA. Independent Quebec wouldn’t make it worse.
Croats were actually enslaved Indians for nearly thousand years, our lands divided between neighboring countries. I know the feeling.
I would be the first one to support some sort of state for indigenous people in America. However, we can’t say that because that kind of land return is not doable Quebecois too should stay under WASP rule until last francophone disappears.
To paraphrase Churchil’s statement about democracy: National state is far from being a perfect solution, but in this world for different ethnic groups to protect themselves it’s the best one.
Tuaregs can expect strong assaults, but only their own independent national state can provide them freedom they wish. If they were happy in Mali, they wouldn’t go into uprisings every couple of years. They don’t have a lot of choice: Tuaregs must fight for Azawad. Let’s not underestimate them.
“I understand what you mean, but my point was that First Nations enjoy at least a little bit better recognition and protection in Quebec, then in the rest of Canada, let alone USA.”
We must stop allowing the imperialists to manufacture wars between people that only serve their agenda.
I can assure you that my friends in Quebec do not support separation. It is a non-issue.
It is also an invitation to listen to the First Nation anti-imperialist voices instead of imperialist agent provocateurs.
The First Nations people are under attack from both French and English Canada. There is no place where they have it better.
Maybe you’d find this lecture enlightening?
http://earthwarriorsrising.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/splitting-the-sky/
About Canada…
Most Canadians want to be a free nation, no longer a British Colony. We also want to be sovereign with regards to the US. There is a massive anti-NAFTA-SPP movement. Our G-20 protests last year exposed the barbarity of our government. We have gradually been integrated into the USA and our law and security agencies fused. The police state is apparent and no one is content with this oppressive situation. All activists in all provinces, from all language and ethnic groups agree that this is our collective challenge and all struggles are against one enemy, not each other.
About Quebec…
Once Native land claims were rightfully settled only a tiny parcel of land would remain of what was once a large province.
But the First Nations people always understood the nature of the beast.
About Oka…
The Quebec government did not act in isolation. We had the military, CSIS (Canadian intelligence) and the RCMP ( Canadian FBI).
http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/colonization-a-war-for-territory/
The ongoing indigenous and anti-imperialist struggle in Canada…
One of the most outspoken people here is Splitting The Sky.
http://splittingthesky.blogspot.ca/
Some other voices…
http://www.treatycouncil.org/section_2114421421.htm
http://anthrojustpeace.blogspot.ca/2010/07/counterinsurgency-from-afghanistan-to.html
Alexandra and Hakomi,
you forced me to study and learn about First Nations in America in last 2-3 days more than for my entire life, goddamnit!
I wanna thank you both for that.
I love to exchange views with clever and well meaning folks.
Let me just add few more notes.
Histoire Quebec (2): Le Régime britannique (1760-1840) – http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/HISTfrQC_s2_Britannique.htm
“3.4 Le sort des autochtones
La conquęte anglaise allait aussi entraîner un désastre plus grand au plan humain : le génocide des populations autochtones. La chute de la Nouvelle-France laissait la plupart des autochtones a la merci des Britanniques, qui rendirent caduques les alliances franco-amérindiennes. Les Iroquois alliés des Britanniques, parfois appuyés par des soldats, déciderent aussitôt de se dédommager des coűts subis par la guerre en pillant les villages algonquins, en incendiant et accaparant tout ce qu’ils pouvaient”.
Brits and French can by no means be equally blamed for tragedy of indigenous peoples of Canada.
The French legacy are Metis. The WASP legacy is less than 1 percent of First Nations in total population.
Acadiens?
http://www.danielnpaul.com/AcadienExpulsion-1755.html
Ugly French?
http://www.danielnpaul.com/Mi'kmaq-FrenchEducation.html
“The Treaty of Paris altered the lifestyles of most indigenous people in the Maritimes, but, the most adversely affected by it was the Cape Breton Mi’kmaq. Under French rule, they had enjoyed freedom from persecution and had been able to practice their culture unmolested. Their experience with the French, compared to the brutality experienced by the mainland Mi’kmaq under English rule, was like the difference between day and night”.
http://membres.multimania.fr/quebecunpays/livre-noir-du-Canada-anglais-Les-Crimes-Robert-Bertrand.html
Le Livre noir du Canada Anglais (The Black Book of English Canada): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_Canada_anglais
This francophone Anglophile fascist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrien_Arcand was staunchly opposed to any Quebecois autonomy, let alone independence.
You know what? I declare unilateral withdrawal from further discussion about Quebec and Canada, Alexandra.
We could go on for ages like this. But thank you for allowing this debate, at least now we can see how everything in this world is interconnected and how ethnic and national questions cannot be ignored, despite the fact that we live in a corporate hi-tech world.
Your approach is reasonable and idealistic. It reminds me on “Yugoslavians” – it was not ethnic but political mark (ethnicities were Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Kosovo Albanians).
As war was approaching, two major groups were confronting each other: Croats, striving for independence, and Serbs, trying to exterminate Croats (and Muslims in Bosnia) or at least to minimize Croatia to its capital city, so they could create so-called Greater Serbia. Among both, Croats and Serbs, were those “Yugoslavians”: they represented some 2-3 percents of people wishing to preserve joint federation – not “Greater Serbia”, but true federation, based on “brotherhood and unity”, as was motto of great president of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito.
They were despised by both Croats and Serbs: majority of Croats simply wanted independence and they thought that Yugoslavians are covertly pushing Serb expansionist agenda. Serbs, on the other hand, well armed, didn’t need Yugoslavians to promote love for brother Croats, the goal was to achieve state of total hatred. And they did it.
When I look at it now, 20 years later, Yugoslavians weren’t bad: they were only supporting something that couldn’t exist.
In Six Counties (Northern Ireland, Brits call it Ulster), there are, say, four major parties: two Irish-nationalist (Sinn Fein and SDLP) and two British-loyalist (UP and DUP). There’s also Alliance Party, which promotes unity among (oppressed) catholics and (ruling) protestants. Guess what? Almost nobody votes for them.
Euskadi (Basque land, Pais Vasco) is very well developed, industrialized and, in fact, wealthiest region in Spain. They would trade all the wealth for independence.
Money and comfortable life isn’t enough to satisfy desire for own, distinct and recognized Nation.
Let’s have no illusions: national and religious feelings are here to stay. We cannot solve national problems with declarations of love. I know that position and living conditions of Quebecois and Tuareg are incomparable. But desire to protect themselves from their stronger and bigger neighbors’ hegemony is pretty much the same.
Religion and nationalism are on their way out and the sooner the better. Nothing good has ever come of either.
I’m dismayed to see the rights of indigenous people superseded by petty nationalistic propaganda. The real issue is restorative justice for crimes committed against millions over centuries.
“The struggle of the First Nations people is the only genuine anti-imperialist struggle here.”
I agree. They are the only people who pose a threat to imperialism, hence the intensive effort to genocide them literally and culturally. To ignore the facts is to state these lives are worthless and only the colonialist’s interests count. The French in Canada aren’t facing any comparable threat but all Canadians live in an imperialist police state.
Splitting The Sky’s answer brings people together to tackle that problem effectively.
http://earthwarriorsrising.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/splitting-the-sky/
Thanks for that post Hakomi.
I wanted to offer this link about the Tuareg and the UN. This meeting took place just before the rebellion that may or may not have taken control of the Asawad.
http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?article3560
The UN haven’t supported human rights for anyone. It might be that these Tuareg youth have been bamboozled into thinking they could muster support for their cause.
I can’t see weapons for their uprising coming from Libya. The only weapons that flowed into Libya during the war were from Qatar and other NATO countries and they went to al qaida rebels.
The UN reports are sympathetic to the refugees which include Tuareg but blame the Tuareg for the crisis. Anyone can read the reports at their websites.
MNLA are being linked with Ansar Dine and AQIM.
Although most reports say the Tuareg are holding their position that’s not what I read when I do more searches.
Tuareg women are being raped and brutalized.
“Islamists have chased the Tuareg out of Timbuktu, burning their flag and replacing it with their black jihad flag.”
They also say that the Islamists plan to take over the entire country turning it into an Islamic state.
Whether the Tuareg are with the AQIM or not doesn’t matter anymore. The youth of Mali want weapons so they can kill them and take back their territory. The damage is done and the only safe Tuareg are outside of Mali.
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2012/04/201241311011547337.html
“A group called Ansar al-Din who have been fighting along the main Tuareg rebel group in Mali say they have established a state based on Islamic law in the north of the country.
But as Mohamed Vall exclusively reports from inside Timbuktu, mass looting and extreme poverty have been the only result so far”.
Al-Jazeera is building “al-Qaeda” narrative since the very beginning of the rebellion. Their reports are almost like a photo-session for “Interventions around the World Magazine” (I made it up, you know what I mean).
For the sake of Tuareg people, I really hope it will turn out that all of you were wrong, saying that this is all about exterminating Tuareg, and that I was right saying that this is genuine attempt of Tuareg to declare independent state of Azawad.
Miro,
In the midst of all these competing agendas there is indeed a genuine Tuareg revolution. It has unfortunately been consumed by the contrary movements and this was NATO’s strategy to manufacture consent for “official intervention”.
I stated in my first article in November that the Tuareg were being placed in detention camps and their weapons confiscated. I had a report from an intelligence risk assessment firm that outlined their thought about the Tuareg risk to investments. A few weeks later I published an update that included a NATO fusion center document, a leaked cable and a Stratfor document along with several other reports. It was clear then that the aim was genocide. US troops have been on the ground before the uprising and elite counter-terrorism forces were deployed in October to quash any possible Tuareg rebellion. The fact that the British and French spokesmen supported Al Qaeda and Feb17th in Libya, it is likely they must be also be aware that militias were dispatched to Syria, while others were deployed throughout the Sahel following the murder of Muammar Gaddafi.
Intelligence, globalist think tanks, military and resource corporations reports reveal what the news is not telling us.
Here is my last article about the Tuareg
http://libya360.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/what-is-happening-with-the-tuareg/
Add all of the above to the fact that the coup leader was an AFRICOM captain and SOA graduate. This would not be a naive man. The SOA are known for the monsters they produce, brutal killers and coup experts. There is no coincidence either that they agreed to hand power to Dioncounda Traore, who immediately declared total war on both the Islamists and the Tuareg.
The accord signed did not specifiy what role the military junta would be playing either. I am certain that there is an agreement that Dioncounda Traore assumed the role of interrim leader only because he was willing to launch a full scale war against the Tuareg, as the NATO-AFRICOM-Junta demanded.
As for NATO intervention, NATO are already involved and have been since October, 2011.