The Malian government’s sudden demand for the immediate withdrawal of over 13 000 peacekeepers from the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) has left many observers perplexed.
Although rumors had circulated about such a move, the government’s decision on June 16 took most by surprise. Just days earlier, the government had responded to the UN Secretary-General’s report on the situation in Mali, criticizing the mission but giving no indication of such drastic action.
This request for withdrawal is the culmination of a process that began nearly two years ago.
Following the coup d’état in May 2021, the transitional authorities distanced themselves from France and aligned with Russia, specifically through the private security company Wagner.
Allegedly, Wagner, founded by a close associate of President Vladimir Putin, deployed between 1,000 and 2,000 mercenaries in Mali, enticed by financial compensation and possible access to valuable gold mines.
Despite Bamako’s denial of Wagner’s presence, claiming that the Russians are solely instructors engaged in intergovernmental cooperation, the authorities gradually abandoned the Sahel stabilisation system, in which France had played a central role since 2013.
This system aimed to stabilize Mali and the surrounding region, yet it struggled to contain the expansion of jihadist groups like the Jama’at Nusratul Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM) coalition and the Islamic State Sahel Province (IS Sahel) in northern and central Mali.
The publication of a report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Moura massacre in March 2022, just weeks before the mission’s renewal vote, dealt a blow to one of the main arguments for extending MINUSMA’s presence.
Despite its ongoing challenges in demonstrating effectiveness, MINUSMA had asserted that its continued presence would serve as a deterrent against severe violence targeting civilians.
However, the UN investigation, carried out in collaboration with the MINUSMA Human Rights Division, accused the Malian armed forces and their Russian counterparts (referred to as “foreign military personnel” by MINUSMA) of participating in the mass execution of hundreds of civilians during sweep operations in the town of Moura, located in the country’s center.
In light of these developments, the Malian government’s demand for the withdrawal of peacekeepers raises numerous questions about the country’s future direction, its relationship with Russia, and the effectiveness of international missions in addressing Mali’s complex security challenges.
It is crucial for all parties involved to seek a comprehensive understanding of the situation and work towards sustainable solutions that prioritize the protection of civilians and the restoration of stability in Mali.
The Malian authorities vehemently reject the accusations leveled against them, yet they have failed to release the findings of an independent investigation conducted by the Malian judiciary.
They have also denounced the UN inquiry as an act of “espionage” aimed at undermining their decision to align with Russia.
The publication of the report has prompted the United States to criticize Russia’s alleged use of Mali as a means to bypass restrictions on arms imports for its war against Ukraine.
Furthermore, in January 2023, the U.S.A. designated Wagner as a transnational criminal organization due to its involvement in Ukraine.
The tragic Moura incident, an unprecedented event in Mali, has weakened the position of those advocating for MINUSMA as one of the few avenues for dialogue with the transitional authorities.
The damning report on the Malian army, coupled with the U.S.A. sanctions against two senior Malian officers, has escalated tensions between Bamako and the mission.
The potential for legal action or targeted sanctions stemming from this report is also a concern for Mali’s leaders.
Despite these tensions, which have contributed to the mission’s diminished strength, most observers anticipated the renewal of MINUSMA’s mandate.
The fear of a security vacuum and the absence of a better alternative were key factors driving this expectation.
While MINUSMA may not have the capacity to fully resolve the Malian crisis, it has provided a military presence in urban areas and valuable resources that many believe Bamako cannot afford to forfeit. In the week leading up to the Security Council meeting,
Russian President Putin and Malian President Assimi Goïta had a telephone conversation. Although the specifics of their discussion remain unclear, it is plausible that MINUSMA’s future was among the topics addressed.
During the Security Council meeting on June 16, Mali’s foreign minister, Abdoulaye Diop, called for the immediate withdrawal of the mission. He emphasized that “the ten years of MINUSMA’s presence… have failed to adequately address the security situation in Mali.”
He went so far as to accuse the mission of being “part of the problem and exacerbating intercommunal tensions.”
The departure of MINUSMA, even if it happens gradually, could have severe consequences for Mali’s already challenging security situation.
The mission’s presence has been primarily concentrated in urban centers, especially those north of the Niger River, with nine bases in northern towns compared to only two in the central region.
While these urban areas may not be the primary targets of jihadist groups, MINUSMA’s presence has played a crucial role in reducing their potential influence in those areas.
Fortunately, no Malian town has experienced the fate of Djibo in neighboring Burkina Faso, where the population has been under a year-long jihadist blockade.
However, the withdrawal of peacekeepers might prompt jihadists to reassess their strategy and besiege urban centers.
Despite the government’s belief that Mali’s armed forces, supported by their Russian allies, can maintain control as they did after the departure of the French Barkhane force in 2022, they have yet to disclose a plan for filling the void left by MINUSMA.
The departure of MINUSMA will also result in the loss of valuable resources for governance and humanitarian aid in Mali. The mission’s air assets, including 63 aircraft with sixteen planes in 2022, have played a crucial role in maintaining connections between the capital and the northern regions.
MINUSMA facilitated the travel of government representatives and provided access to previously isolated or heavily influenced regions by humanitarian workers, such as the town of Ménaka.
With the mission’s exit, travel between Bamako and the northern regions is likely to become more challenging, while road journeys remain lengthy and risky.
Additionally, MINUSMA has created thousands of jobs and funded numerous stabilisation projects, albeit representing only a fraction of its budget.
The loss of these economic opportunities will particularly impact regions that have already been weakened by the decade-long crisis.
If the Malian authorities fail to make investments to compensate for the departure of the UN mission, the relationship between Bamako and the populations in the north could become strained.
MINUSMA’s withdrawal from Mali has the potential to further weaken the ongoing peace process that began with the signing of the 2015 Algiers Peace Agreement.
The agreement involved the Malian government, the Coordination of Azawad Movements (the main coalition of former rebel groups), and the Platform of Algiers (a conglomerate of pro-government groups).
However, just days after the government announced its decision to request the mission’s withdrawal, the signatory movements expressed that this request was a “fatal blow” to the agreement.
Disagreements between the state and armed groups have already caused the peace process to stall for months.
In this context, there is growing concern among Mali’s partners and observers that the agreement could unravel in the coming months.
The likelihood of hostilities reigniting between the government and the signatory groups involved in the peace process is increasing.
While the Malian authorities publicly maintain their commitment to the process, they have expressed reservations about an agreement that was largely imposed on them in 2015.
Privately, many Malian officials question the terms of the agreement. MINUSMA’s departure will weaken the capacity for international mediation, as the mission facilitated contact with the signatory parties and organized monitoring committee sessions.
Although Algeria remains committed to the process as the lead international mediator, it does not engage in day-to-day mediation, a role that could be crucial given the entrenched positions of the signatory armed groups.
Additionally, the withdrawal of UN troops from northern towns creates a worrisome standoff, with the Malian army seeking to avenge past grievances and the signatory armed groups accustomed to managing their territories independently.
The expiration of MINUSMA’s mandate will significantly impact the protection of civilians. While the UN force has faced challenges in accessing rural areas where atrocities against civilians occur, it has served as a form of imperfect protection.
The mission has documented abuses by international and national forces, shedding light on incidents such as the French bombing of Bounty village in 2021 and the killings by the Malian army and Wagner in Moura.
In this regard, MINUSMA has played a crucial role in mitigating violence associated with counter-insurgency strategies to some extent. The expiration of MINUSMA’s mandate will also have a significant impact on civilian protection.
While the UN force faced challenges in reaching remote rural areas where atrocities against civilians often occur, it provided a form of imperfect protection.
MINUSMA’s documentation of abuses by international and national forces, including incidents like the French bombing of Bounty village and the killings by the Malian army and Wagner in Moura, shed light on these grave violations.
As a result, the mission played a crucial role in curbing violence associated with counter-insurgency strategies, even though its effectiveness had limitations.
As Bamako distances itself from select Western and African partners, it runs the risk of relying solely on military approaches that, on their own, cannot bring long-term stability to the country.
The path forward for Mali becomes increasingly uncertain as it confronts the challenge of financing its strategy for stabilizing the central regions.
Launched in March, this strategy aimed to coordinate both national and international efforts in areas such as Mopti, Ségou, San, Bandiagara, and Douentza.
However, the estimated cost of implementing this action plan stands at a staggering $644 million, a sum that the government will struggle to raise independently.
It becomes evident that a multidimensional approach is essential, one that goes beyond military actions pursued by the Malian authorities and their Russian partners.
The Security Council members are now faced with a delicate task of determining a concrete response to Mali’s request.
As we approach the end of June, intense negotiations loom on the horizon, coinciding with the Council’s vote on a new mandate for the mission and continuing throughout the withdrawal process.
The road ahead is clouded with uncertainty regarding the nature and specifics of the upcoming mandate.
Some Council members, including the United States, have taken note of Mali’s withdrawal of consent and appear to advocate for an organized drawdown.
France, as the penholder for Council resolutions on Mali, initially contemplated extending the mission’s mandate but has now accepted Bamako’s request.
On the other hand, some members still hold onto hopes of a change of heart within Mali or a consensus within the Council to stall the withdrawal request.
However, given the divisions within the Council and the firm stance of the Malian elites on MINUSMA’s departure, these hopes seem increasingly dim.
Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop clarified Mali’s request to the Security Council on June 23, urging the Council to adopt a resolution specifically addressing the details of MINUSMA’s plan for an immediate withdrawal.
Disregarding this request or attempting to reverse course could provoke a backlash against the mission, posing a security risk to UN personnel, especially in the face of potential demonstrations or blocked access to bases.
Significant portions of the Malian population already harbor mistrust towards the UN mission, particularly in Bamako, where crowds require little encouragement to voice their discontent with the UN presence.
As negotiations unfold, it is important to consider the challenges that lie ahead beyond the task of determining the withdrawal timetable.
While there are genuine risks of tensions and missteps, it is crucial to prevent a descent into major recriminations.
Instead, all parties involved must demonstrate a commitment to finding common ground and embracing compromise.
It is essential to recognize that the stakes are high for each side, and the situation could quickly spiral out of control if not handled with care.
It is in the best interest of the Security Council to avoid punitive measures against Mali.
Despite its current stance, Mali remains a member of the UN system and has the potential to reassess its position following the upcoming 2024 elections.
It is therefore imperative for the Council to approach the negotiations with a long-term perspective, keeping in mind the country’s future engagement and cooperation within the UN.
On the other hand, the Malian authorities bear a responsibility to refrain from antagonising MINUSMA once the principle of withdrawal has been established in the forthcoming mandate.
While they have requested the mission’s departure, it is essential for Mali, as a member country, to preserve its relations with the broader UN system.
The UN offers various forms of support beyond the scope of the stabilisation mission, and damaging these ties could have detrimental consequences for Mali’s overall engagement with the organisation.
By navigating these challenges with diplomacy and foresight, the negotiating parties can aim for a resolution that safeguards their respective interests while upholding the spirit of cooperation and collaboration within the UN system.
It is through measured dialogue and mutual respect that a pathway to stability and progress in Mali can be forged. While MINUSMA’s departure from Mali will mark the end of its peacekeeping presence, it is important to note that the United Nations will not completely withdraw from the country.
The involvement of civilian agencies, such as the UN Development Programme and the World Food Programme, remains crucial, particularly in addressing the complex humanitarian situation.
Maintaining a positive relationship with the UN can bring significant benefits to Bamako, allowing the agencies still operating in Mali to continue their support programs in areas where MINUSMA is no longer present, provided the security conditions allow it.
By obtaining Bamako’s consent, the UN can further enhance the capacity of its civilian agencies, including supporting humanitarian flights and improving coordination among various UN entities. MINUSMA’s contributions in Mali extend beyond stabilization programs and peacekeeping efforts.
Despite varying levels of success, the mission has played a role in supporting the political transition and fostering dialogue with the signatories of the 2015 peace agreement on a regular basis.
Recognising the importance of these endeavors, the Security Council could establish a good offices mission to facilitate ongoing mediation and communication.
However, it is unlikely that Bamako would readily accept such an initiative, as previous proposals of this nature were met with outright rejection.
Mali’s perspective is driven by a perceived lack of tangible benefits in exchange for continued external oversight of its internal affairs.
Alternatively, Algeria could potentially assume the role of a day-to-day mediator, utilizing additional diplomatic channels.
Nevertheless, the feasibility of this option depends on Bamako’s willingness and commitment to navigating a faltering peace process.
In navigating the post-MINUSMA era, it is essential for all stakeholders to recognize the importance of sustained international support in different capacities.
The UN’s civilian agencies have a critical role to play in addressing the humanitarian needs of the population, while diplomatic efforts should continue to foster dialogue and facilitate peaceful resolutions.
By preserving an amicable relationship with the UN and exploring innovative approaches, Mali can navigate these challenges and work towards sustainable peace and development.
The ongoing negotiations surrounding the withdrawal of MINUSMA from Mali carry significant implications that extend far beyond a simple timetable for departure.
These discussions hold the key to the alliances and support that Mali will continue to receive from the remaining UN agencies operating in the country.
Moreover, the outcome of these negotiations will shape the future of Bamako’s relations with its international partners, which, despite being strained, are not irreparable.
Mali’s authorities have been vocal in their calls for MINUSMA’s withdrawal, a sentiment that aligns with their previous push for the departure of French counter-terrorism forces and the European military task force.
Additionally, they have withdrawn from the G5 Sahel joint force, indicating their determination to take full control of the country’s future and counter-insurgency strategies.
However, in their pursuit of self-reliance, they may find themselves still reliant on external actors, particularly their Russian military partners.
The reliability of this newfound alliance remains uncertain, given the tensions between the Wagner Group and the Russian government.
While it was necessary for Mali to bring an end to a stabilisation system that revealed its weaknesses, the authorities must now strike a delicate balance in their new partnerships to avoid isolation or over-dependence on a single ally.
Failing to do so could jeopardize their relations with other essential partners whose support remains vital to Mali’s future and stability.
The Security Council members hold a crucial role in ensuring that the negotiations regarding MINUSMA’s withdrawal receive the consent of all parties involved.
None of Mali’s international partners stand to benefit from severing ties with a country whose future and stability have far-reaching consequences for the entire subregion.
Instead, efforts should be focused on finding a balanced solution that safeguards Mali’s interests while maintaining fruitful partnerships.
By working collaboratively, the international community can help shape a sustainable and prosperous future for Mali, ensuring its progress does not come at the cost of isolating itself from valuable allies.
*The writer of this article is Kevin Mofokeng, a developmental writer and digital PR strategist based in Gaborone, Botswana.
