Skip to content

Concerned citizens react

March 3, 2009

A gathering of Arab and Touareg tribal leaders in the Algerian-Malian borderlands has announced their readiness to chase down and kill AQIM bands, unless the gunmen release their Western hostages without ransom. Why, one may ask, this sudden display of civic-mindedness, by men hitherto known mostly as Kalashnikov-wielding highwaymen?

Well, according to Algeria’s El Khabar,

a high-ranking Algerian security official met with some representatives of tribal notables from northern Mali in the city of Tamanrasset, to discuss the demands of these tribes for engaging in battle against al-Qaida . . . the best way of fighting the criminal bands is to isolate them and deprive them of supplies, food and fuel — which they presently have easy access to in northern Mali in return for money — by way of arming anti-terrorist militias, on the model of the Algerian Patriots.

Tamanrasset is a town in the Algerian south. The “Patriots” are the home guard units established by Algeria during the civil war. That strategy, essentially a wholesale militarization of the countryside, on the one hand helped quell the Islamist insurgency by shutting it out of rural communities on which it had previously depended for logistical and material support, but, on the other, it also helped precipitate the worst years of the war (the era of massacres, c. 1997), as civilian communities were ineluctably drawn into the conflict.

I’d propose the Sahwa project in western Iraq as a more reasonable comparison, though. Like in Anbar, but unlike most of Algeria, this will be about arming and empowering cooperative tribes against foreign insurgents, and against those who do not cooperate. (Although of course on a wholly different scale, the Mali insurgency being absolutely tiny in comparison to the bloodshed that reigned in Iraq at the time. Let’s keep that in mind.) The Patriots were not armed from tribal chief down, as in Iraq, but rather recruited as individuals, although there were all sorts of exceptions. Mali’s north, by contrast, is totally tribal.

* * *

Without reading to much into a single news report, this is a trend that merits attention. I know I’m obsessing a little about it, but the pax algeriana established in northern Mali really strikes me as something with larger implications than just for anti-terrorism. The government in Mali is happy to see the rebellion settle down, but Algeria’s intrusive mediation has also forced Bamako to resign itself to the fact that Algeria now basically runs its own proxy forces in northern Mali. (This is not a new strategy: among the clauses of the agreements mediated and re-mediated by Algiers is a provision that Touareg rebels will form “special units” tasked with eliminating “every foreign armed presence” on Mali’s territory i.e., to combat AQIM and whoever else Algeria doesn’t want running around the borderlands. Of course these groups would be trained and sponsored by Algeria, even if they would formally be a part of Mali’s army.)

In the end, the Saharan borders are just lines on a map, and conditions on the ground rather anarchic. It’s not realistically possible to establish an uncontested monopoly-of-force the way you can in eg. a controlled urban environment, regardless of what resources you bring to the table. What you have is the possibility to insert yourself as an indispensible judge and final arbiter in local disputes, by projecting overwhelming might; and a series of economical, tribal and various other client networks, which, more often than not, will flow across state borders.

While no one imagines total quiet will reign in these areas anytime soon, Algeria seems determined to collect as many as possible of those patronage strings in its own hand, and establish a stable and pro-Algerian environment around its borders. That does have some interesting implications for local politics, as does the fact that no one seems willing or able to move against  it. That eternal meddler Qadhafi may be stirring up north-east, but he seems to have lost out on this one, when his boy Bahanga was routed by the Mali army and the rest of the Touareg insurgency brought round to negotiate by a combination of Mali’s military pressure, and Algeria’s bitterswet mix of money and menace. Rather, El Khabar claims, Libya is now on board pressuring dissident groups, after the summit that was held in Nouakchott recently, grouping top security officials from the Maghreb nations.

* * *

For al-Qaida, a consensus around these strategies presumably spells bad news. But what does it mean for the Sahel more generally, that Algeria has begun muscling into neighbouring countries again, after its long war-era withdrawal from the Saharan scene? Or should it perhaps be interpreted as an early example of how the economy-&-ecology driven weakening of sovereign governments in the Sahel has begun, albeit still on a very small scale, to suck in outsiders into their no-longer-internal disputes?

It may be good or bad, and a sign of more to come, or not — but I say let’s take notice.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. March 3, 2009 20:52

    Sons of Iraq, Sons of Afghanistan, Sons of Mali, whatever. They’re all just fighting for cash. I don’t see why the problem of the north will turn out any different now that the Algerians are paying the Tuareg rather than the Malians and Nigeriens paying the Tuareg in the late 1990s/early 2000s, unless this momentary peace is used to try to permanently alter the social and political conditions in the north.

  2. March 3, 2009 20:56

    Although I do think that’s it’s bad for AQIM. If Algeria is able to demonstrate that they have influence in the area that AQIM operates in, Western countries should be able to exert political pressure on Algeria to act against AQIM if AQIM does something outrageous like kidnaps a UN representative.

  3. March 4, 2009 02:12

    This is terrific

  4. Tommy Miles permalink
    March 4, 2009 17:28

    I defer to your knowledge of who’s paying whom in Kidal, but the Malian press made a point of saying that the first Malian attack in January at Aguelhoc (following Ag Bahanga’s return from Libya) was conducted not by the army by former FIAA fighters led by “Colonel” Abdrahmane Ould Medhou. The long list of northern proxy groups (all the 1990 rebel factions who may not get along, Ghanda Koy — who the Army just re-suppressed in Gao last year, now the ADC once again) seem just as likely to be Malian paid as Algerian. Or is that a distinction without a difference?

  5. March 4, 2009 22:24

    Adrian & T M — I’d be happy to leave sorting out the Touareg factions to you two…

    Daniel — Thanks!

    Adrian — I didn’t mean that N. Mali will turn out very different from before, or that Algerian influence is benign (quite possibly the contrary), but that it seems to me to have drifted very definitely into an Algerian sphere of influence that just wasn’t there in the same way ten years ago. Maybe not even five years ago.

    This is, I think, important for the larger politics of the region. You have Algeria and even Qadhafi more assertive than in the recent past, thanks largely to oil and stability, while the whole string of Sahel states are dangerously at risk from essentially non-political factors (financial crises, desertification & climate change, technology, globalization issues, etc) to become weaker and more open to foreign influence. Maybe I’m seeing things that aren’t there, but I think this is the way we may be headed.

    As for Algeria and terrorism, I read it has refused French demands to allow Western aircraft to chase down the AQIM unit using its sovereign airspace. Apart from that, and the tribal mobilization reported by El Khabar, I’m not sure there are any real news on its reaction to the hostage affair.

  6. March 4, 2009 22:46

    I suppose I don’t remember reading much about Algeria’s role in the 1990s rebellion other than as hosting refugee camps in the 70s and 80s, I guess they weren’t in a position to take over the Tuareg group at the same time they were taking over the GIA groups. There are only so many insurgencies one country can pretend to fight at a time!

  7. March 5, 2009 00:27

    Well, they set up the Tamanrasset accord. Your ideas about the Algerian insurgency aside: the 90s clearly had Algeria less pushy regionally & internationally since the country was busy tearing itself apart, but then there was less of a conflict to get involved with too…

  8. Tommy Miles permalink
    March 5, 2009 16:46

    Well I am curious to hear the folks who know Maghreb affairs take on who’s funding whom. I’m in the US, so my take is all from newspapers. I have a feeling, without any proof, that these groups really are smugglers first and rebels/army units second. I can’t see how the Malian government (or the Nigerien) can offer much more than an imprimatur to these groups. They don’t have either the money or the supply of guns of their northern neighbors can offer. The only thing they can offer is free access to routes, and supplies of migrants and alcohol to run: both worth much more than I imagine the governments can pay.

    I’d also like to hear people’s take on the MNJ, which has the appearance of a “real” political group, has real grievances, but coincides too much with Libyan interests for me to ignore. As a lefty, I view with some concern the adoption of their cause by westerners, especially given the history of ethnic relations in Niger. I’ve also noticed their press office has gone all silent for the last month, after suddenly taking a domestic political tact in their communiques.

  9. March 5, 2009 16:51

    “I have a feeling, without any proof, that these groups really are smugglers first and rebels/army units second.”

    That’s not wrong, but remember also that smuggling is a political activity. Strengthening the Malian state will harm their smuggling activity. And cracking down on smuggling is also political, because smuggling is seen as legitimate commerce – a lot of people in the Sahara don’t view national borders as legitimate or important.

Trackbacks

  1. The South Wing » The Blog » Counter-insurgency spreading
  2. WSJ on AQIM in the Sahara « Maghreb Politics Review

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.