Rather true to the title of the blog, Japan and Asia, this writer has scarcely extended his comments to Africa South of Sahara. However, I now feel some anxieties concerning the French operation in Mali, which started with the air bombardment on 13 December, and has been intensified ever since. It has now the backing of the Security Council resolution.
First, France says that this is not their Afghanistan, and it will be over in 'a matter of weeks'. Who knows? This may well be their Afghanistan, and may be extended into months, if not years.
Second, it is said that the rebels are extremists who are Al-Qaida related. It may be so. But is the military the only means to cope with them? Is enough being done to isolate the non-extremists who may be politically and otherwise unrepresented and non-privileged in their own country?
Third, the French still tend to oversee her former colonial territories. They are militarily based here and there, as in Chad, where the operation has started from. Way back in 1980, when R.Journiac, the then Advisor to the President on Africa died in an air accident over Cameroon, it was said that he was overseeing the whole of Africa just as Cardinal Richelieu was overseeing the whole of France some centuries ago. Has there been any substantial change in this? Or old habits die hard? France has been militarizing much of Africa, and this time also lots of weapons will be transferred to the troops of the ECOWAS nations.
Fourth, it has been pointed out that these things have been happening even while there was a Socialist President. Are they proving it once again?
Fifth, and last, in one of my blogs in December, I have hinted at the Japanese responsibility for the present situation in South Korea. If France wants to be responsible for Africa, in her own way, as above, is she take responsibility for what has been happening in Syria recently, which was under her League of Nations Mandate in the inter-war years?
First, France says that this is not their Afghanistan, and it will be over in 'a matter of weeks'. Who knows? This may well be their Afghanistan, and may be extended into months, if not years.
Second, it is said that the rebels are extremists who are Al-Qaida related. It may be so. But is the military the only means to cope with them? Is enough being done to isolate the non-extremists who may be politically and otherwise unrepresented and non-privileged in their own country?
Third, the French still tend to oversee her former colonial territories. They are militarily based here and there, as in Chad, where the operation has started from. Way back in 1980, when R.Journiac, the then Advisor to the President on Africa died in an air accident over Cameroon, it was said that he was overseeing the whole of Africa just as Cardinal Richelieu was overseeing the whole of France some centuries ago. Has there been any substantial change in this? Or old habits die hard? France has been militarizing much of Africa, and this time also lots of weapons will be transferred to the troops of the ECOWAS nations.
Fourth, it has been pointed out that these things have been happening even while there was a Socialist President. Are they proving it once again?
Fifth, and last, in one of my blogs in December, I have hinted at the Japanese responsibility for the present situation in South Korea. If France wants to be responsible for Africa, in her own way, as above, is she take responsibility for what has been happening in Syria recently, which was under her League of Nations Mandate in the inter-war years?
No comments:
Post a Comment