The tragic conflict that erupted in Mali towards the end of 2012 has highlighted and exposed the weakness of Europe and the European ideal of a single-state entity, the natural conclusion of 'ever closer union'.
The Malian mess
Mali's tragedy has come about due to the usual cocktail of bad governance, poverty, inequality and tribal grievances. On top of that, militant Islam was thrown in along with freely available weaponry, all combining to produce an explosive mixture.
Local warlords and drug-traffickers have combined with militant Islamists, claiming the ideology of Al-Qaeda in the hope of attracting international support and funding. They started with kidnappings, smuggling and drug running, but then, encouraged by the support they attracted, particularly in the poor northern part of Mali, where inequalities had been highest and government support lowest since independence in 1960, quickly expanded into a serious armed force.
Against them stood a divided government. President Toure, who had always been soft on Islamists, had been ousted by Captain Sanogo, whose 'official' army is a poor opponent for the Malian rebel forces. The interim-President, Dioncounda Traore, was the one who asked France to intervene.
Suffice to say, there is now a food crisis as 18 million people face hunger, a refugee crisis as 400,000 people have been forced to flee their homes, and the subsequent knock-on effects of a health crisis and economic crisis for the country.
Here comes Europe
The EU made the right noises in support of democracy and the government, but the real action has been minimal. The EU has offered training to the official government forces that are under Malian civilian control, but has expressly stated that there shall be no combat involvement. Instead, the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) is expected to lead the international action under the guise of AFISMA – the African International Support Mission to Mali.
However, Germany has ruled out getting involved in any combat and fighting, not feeling any desire to risk lives and soldiers on the soil of Mali, the 16th poorest state in Africa in 2011 (surely even lower on the list of wealth now). France, on the other hand, has been only too keen to become involved, for colonial, historical, economic and political reasons. France has felt that intervention in Mali will help secure its borders and secure access to African oil supplies. The UK has also chosen to become involved, recognising that terrorism thrives in a vacuum, and what happens in Mali could one day result in an explosion in London.
Integration exposed
Yet if the EU had been integrated further, there would have been an enormous problem in just getting an agreement to act. Precisely because military action is outside of the EU’s control at the moment, French forces have the flexibility to aid African forces in pushing back the spread of international terrorism. Had forces been integrated, German pressure would have led to some kind of compromise, probably restricting involvement just to ‘safe’ airstrikes.
And if forces had been integrated, there would have been a situation in which half of Europe would have had very little concern or support for the military action being taken. Whilst lives would be on the line, political support in the EU would have been weak and half-hearted.
Law and order is being brought back to Mali precisely because of the flexibility to act without the dogma of one-size-fits-all European elitism. It is because France and Britain have power over their own military forces that they can choose to act, with wide popular support; and it is because Germany has control over its military that they can choose to keep their forces out. European integration removes choice, and it removes flexibility. When will government ministers in London and across Europe realise this?
