African forces alone will don the mask of international legitimacy, and move to intervene militarily in Northern Mali, in hope of restoring some of its unity and sovereignty, which were lost in a risky coup d'état that flung open the gates of Hell before this collapsing African country. In terms of psychological and political preparation, the Security Council paved the way for such a potential intervention by issuing binding resolutions that gave West African states some time to complete their preparations, and to encourage them to carry out an operation on the field which Western armies have abstained from engaging in so as to avoid direct invasion. Moreover, there are precedents of action by African forces in Somalia and Sudan that would drive one to test their role once again, since it has become difficult for Western countries to drag their armies into quagmires of ill-consequence. It is not a matter of marginalizing the role of Western armies, but rather of caution not to fall into contradiction between on the one hand their commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan, as was the case in Iraq for US troops, and on the other returning to set up camp in a region that is sure to become a hotspot. Moreover, it appears that some changes have imposed themselves through the discourse adopted by the United States, which paved the way for a second term in office for President Barack Obama. Indeed, Obama has fulfilled his pledge of decreasing military presence outside the United States with the exception of strategic areas. Similarly, French President François Hollande will have to think long and hard before engaging in any military adventure in Africa. Merely agreeing on the intervention of African forces in Northern Mali meant the official death of a previous American plan dubbed Africom, which would have established an American-African military complex specialized in intervening in the Dark Continent in the case of American and Western interests coming under treat. And all the ink that had run around this plan, in terms of looking into the establishment of American bases in the region, organizing measures and maneuvers, and determining command centers, has ended with maintaining areas of security and military cooperation. In the countries of the Sahel, a debate has been stirred up over plans of pioneering in directing events and initiatives. Indeed, Algeria has hosted several security-related, diplomatic and military meetings to study the ways of confronting security unrest near its borders into Africa. Rabat, on the other hand, has taken a direction that seeks to urge the countries of the European Union to take tangible action to contain the repercussions of such unrest. Meanwhile, the countries concerned have resorted directly to the policy of following in their footsteps. The Americans, however, have in the midst of this called for carrying out additional military maneuvers, with the aim of preparing military structures in the countries of the Sahel to confront potential repercussions. As a matter of fact, the French, who had no qualms in supporting the regimes that orbited around them to the extent of intervening militarily, as they did in Chad during its war with Libya, have replaced this approach with strengthening the intervention mechanisms of African armies. The picture has changed to a great extent. Indeed, during the Cold War era, there were no obstacles to prevent military intervention. This happened at least twice, in order to support the regime of President Mobutu Sese Seko, before he removed the mask and revealed his dictatorial face. Belgium had spearheaded several such experiences at the time, as a result of its political and commercial ties. Yet these concepts have changed and military intervention has become a legitimate means to topple corrupt and tyrannical regimes. It is in fact quite paradoxical for the NATO alliance and Western countries to have refrained from intervening in an African country whose unity and sovereignty have been robbed by armed groups who had often been involved in kidnapping Westerners for ransom to fund their activity and movements. Indeed, the most dangerous of kidnappings is for particular countries to fall prey to piracy, despite all international laws and customs, with the prevalence of a logic of domination through weapons and the imposition of customs unrelated to the values of liberation, equality and the defense of human rights. Most likely turning a blind eye to what Northern Mali is going through will lead small African lacking the ability to withstand to fall into the hands of extremist groups. Had not mistakes in strategic reckoning been committed in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the Al-Qaeda organization would not have arisen to impose its control there – and to be bold enough to strike against the United States of America in its military and economic strongholds. In fact, Al-Qaeda's influence has spread to the depths of the African continent, which means that fears of the rise of a new Afghanistan in the Sahel South of the Sahara have become justified. What is certain is that no African or Western military intervention will decisively deal with the real problems, those connected to the objective and core reasons for the growth of the phenomenon of terrorism. Indeed, the fertile soil that allows it to take root is not simply limited to the proliferation of radical and closed-minded ideas, which often don a blurred Islamic cloak, but rather goes beyond this with the presence of another kind of extremism. It resides in the condescending view on the problems of the countries of the South, submerged in economic and social crises, as well as the absence of prospects. And as long as there is no discussion into establishing a new economic and cultural system that would restore consideration to the peoples who have been oppressed, and would be characterized by a certain extent of fairness and of incentives to start helping growth, all interventions will remain a brand of muscle-flexing and nothing more. Nevertheless, this should not prevent one from admitting to the fact that defending the unity and sovereignty of the state has precedence over guarantees of emancipation.
