When pressure against the Taliban mounted, it resorted to destroying the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. It was more like a war where arrows were being shot against ballistic missiles. The fighters of the movement found nothing but old axes that they used to destroy statues that have a major importance in the human cultural heritage. Thus, they attracted all sorts of condemnation and denunciation. Something similar, yet even baser and more tragic happened in the new Afghanistan on the Sahel of the Southern Sahara, that is, Mali. Some mosques and shrines in Timbuktu were subjected to brutal and reckless destruction. Each time the outlaws and radical movements are faced with some crises, it seems, their only way out is to destroy shrines and landmarks, thus severing every link they have in common with humanity and its shared heritage. Despite their inherent cruelty, wars have laws that ban attacks against human heritage in addition to protecting places of worship, museums and symbols of coexistence. But one exception perhaps involves the American wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, which saw the destruction of mosques and convents, and in the process, prompted others into engaging in equally ruthless practices. While characterizing the destruction of shrines and places of worship as part of the crimes against humanity aims at refraining the radicalism and intolerance, wars against cultural identities are fiercer and more dangerous. The burning of books, and the hanging of scientists, intellectuals, and innovators are additional proofs to that the religious wars are direr. Beyond being listed by UNESCO as a world heritage site, Timbuktu has a history that is vibrant with cultural fusion ever since the commercial caravans and preachers used to cross it as they moved to the African hinterlands. Back then, they carried no weapons in order to preach about values and principles. They only spoke with the logic of persuasion and tolerance and they destroyed no places of worship nor did they harm symbols or traditions. Ironically, those who have been historically persecuted are now repeating the same deadly mistake by attacking the common values among religions and cultures, failing to learn any lessons. Why is it that, when tragedies strike, graves are dug up, historic landmarks are destroyed and the signs of tolerance are wiped out? Most probably, the poison of animosity can infiltrate those souls that cannot see the facts as they are and that cannot deal with their patterns and rules. Thus, those groups and movements living outside the realm of history find nothing to do but tamper with the socio-cultural fabric of the countries going through crises. The mutilation of landmarks and vestiges of ancestors only aims at distorting facts and erasing identities. Such practices aim at stirring additional tension and hatred. Sectarianism, the wars of the minorities and language-related conflicts look for fertile grounds amidst the spiritual entities. The scenes of partitioning that threaten the nations become justified with the increase of the religious, racial, or language-related sedition. But feelings of fear regarding the establishment of one or more autonomous regions in Northern Mali is placing these practices in the context of dealing a blow to the unity of the country. The crisis that this African country is going through is nothing but the beginning of the countdown for the implementation of larger plots where the seclusion of the North African countries from their civilized extension in the south is at the top of these objectives. And when geographical partitioning cannot be achieved, spiritual and social partitioning can. The Mali crisis did not start with the demolishing of the shrines and temples; and it will not end through the international and humanitarian condemnation of these practices. The crisis is way deeper than that. The current destruction of the cultural heritage aims at propagating the feeling of resignation all the way to partitioning. Some of this is taking place in the near African surrounding such as Nigeria, which doesn't know what to do with its oil wealth. In the future, no African country will be safe from this scourge. The initiative of West African countries is not sufficient to safeguard security and stability in Mali. It is a step in the right direction and an attempt at anticipating threats that other countries may be affected by severe bloodshed. But the North African countries that were supposed to be the first to carry positive efforts, have so far failed to figure out the best ways to deal with the crises that are sweeping over its southern side. These countries are drowning in their contradictions. They want to draw closer to the worrisome security concerns. However, they aren't being able to locate the defect as some of these countries consider that the Southern Sahara is an inseparable geographical part of its internal security, while others believe that the Sahara is an international responsibility connected to a global war against terrorism. Until the international position concerning intervention – and whether this intervention will be a military, a security-related, or a political one – some are betting on the co-existence with the option of the unjust partitioning. Mali would not have had to go through this option if it wasn't for the power conflicts that led to a power crisis and a state crisis.
