Oh, Mali is back to old self again

[hellheaven1987]

I bet French Foreign Legion needs to return Mali soon.

Deadly clashes have broken out in northern Mali between the army and rebels, who seized 28 people as the prime minister visited the area.

At least 36 people reportedly died in Kidal as Tuareg rebels fought troops on Saturday before and during PM Moussa Mara's visit.

When he left the governor's office in Kidal, the building was seized by the rebels, an eyewitness told the BBC.

In 2012 a Tuareg rebellion in northern Mali triggered a military coup.

Civilian rule was re-established in 2013, but Islamist and separatist forces remain active in some areas.

"Eight members of the armed forces were killed and 25 were wounded, while 28 of the attackers were killed," the defence ministry said.

Mr Mara said that the government was now "at war" with the separatists. President Ibrahim Boubakar Keita is expected to give a national address on Monday.

Malian Defence Minister Soumeylou Boubeye Maiga said on Sunday that reinforcements would be sent to Kidal.

"We will double our troops on the ground if necessary," AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

Mr Mara spent Saturday night at the Malian army camp in Kidal, flying to Gao early on Sunday morning.

Source

So what does the glorious West intervention last year bring besides turn the whole conflict back to "balance" again, and hence prolong the conflict and bring more civilian casualty?

[Condottiere 40K]

They need to teach the Mali security apparatus to fish, not hand them a mackerel.

[Roma_Victrix]

Do unto terrorists as you would have them do unto you?

I think we need to rethink the golden rule.

[Mangalore]

...
So what does the glorious West intervention last year bring besides turn the whole conflict back to "balance" again, and hence prolong the conflict and bring more civilian casualty?

Removing a bunch of raping, looting lunatics with a medieval ideology seems fair game to me any day of the week. The internal conflict with Tuareg rebels wasn't solved but at least those s aren't in charge anymore.

[Visna]

Mali back to old self...
did it ever leave?

[hellheaven1987]

Removing a bunch of raping, looting lunatics with a medieval ideology seems fair game to me any day of the week. The internal conflict with Tuareg rebels wasn't solved but at least those s aren't in charge anymore.

Like Islamists actually got destroyed.

[Mangalore]

Like Islamists actually got destroyed.

Did I say that? No. So where's your point?

[Yayattasa]

Removing a bunch of raping, looting lunatics with a medieval ideology seems fair game to me any day of the week. The internal conflict with Tuareg rebels wasn't solved but at least those s aren't in charge anymore.

West interventionism to solve an issue created by... west interventionism. It's like the EU loves circular logic or some like that.

[DarthShizNit]

French Special Forces are still in the country, the Legion special force units included.

[Papay]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27511448

The Malian army was routed from the area

[hellheaven1987]

Mali Tuareg rebels agree ceasefire in Kidal talks

Rebels in northern Mali have agreed to a ceasefire, two days after clashes with the army threatened to throw the country back into chaos.

Three Tuareg rebel groups occupying the key northern town of Kidal signed the agreement after talks with African Union chairman Mohamed Ould Abdelaziz.

Some 20 Malian soldiers have died since Wednesday in fighting over who holds the town.

The separatists have gained control of much of northern Mali in recent days.

Source

Meh, I guess I can approve the cease fire if it means the rebels can regroup and reorganize for bigger fireworks.

[conon394]

Bump view from the ground, Mali looks like fast sliding into lost cause territory

http://bridgesfrombamako.com/2014/11...alis-problems/

I mean one of the key problems is no matter how silly the Turig we want independence or near Independence thing is - it is solid because Bamako seems utterly unable to produce a non corrupt functioning government. As the Artical note South Sudan proves a two state solution is hardly likely to perfect, but a reliable and effective government in Bamako would look and Botswana.

[Mementomoridc]

can we stop looking at africa like the reast of the world. I know that sounds harsh, but outside parts of the middle east and the caucuses the rest of the worlds nations formed in a somewhat natural way. There is infighting other places but not like the middle east and Africa cause we ed the whole place up by making random nations out of the place. I have no idea how to fix what is going on there. It is like eastern Europe after ww2, nations spliting and till ethnic groups are not together they won't be happy. The only way around this would be near instant booms in prosperity for all. Which is ofc a pipe dream. We created a mess that we want to fix, but the mess doesn't (in any real way) want our help. The few places that do are doing well, so it is not Africa as a whole. But the only thing we seem to think we can do is go in and help, they love us then, we fix the problem but 2months later.... We have to let them fix things on their own or we have to go wana be good guy nazi's on them and waste billions that would make the last Iraq war look like a trip to Disney land.

[athanaric]

can we stop looking at africa like the reast of the world. I know that sounds harsh, but outside parts of the middle east and the caucuses the rest of the worlds nations formed in a somewhat natural way. There is infighting other places but not like the middle east and Africa cause we ed the whole place up by making random nations out of the place. I have no idea how to fix what is going on there. It is like eastern Europe after ww2, nations spliting and till ethnic groups are not together they won't be happy. The only way around this would be near instant booms in prosperity for all. Which is ofc a pipe dream. We created a mess that we want to fix, but the mess doesn't (in any real way) want our help. The few places that do are doing well, so it is not Africa as a whole. But the only thing we seem to think we can do is go in and help, they love us then, we fix the problem but 2months later.... We have to let them fix things on their own or we have to go wana be good guy nazi's on them and waste billions that would make the last Iraq war look like a trip to Disney land.

That's only part of the problem. The main issue is that Mali has an insane reproduction rate, which means that there'll be enough fighters to rise up for any organization or ideology, no matter how ed up, as long as it promises them a piece of the cake. And there'll be still enough people to spare who'll emigrate and take their problems to other parts of the world. So what's most needed in Mali, and really in all of Africa, is more education for the local women, in order to enable them to use birth control and increase their leverage in society. Then there'll be a chance that the region stabilizes and maybe even prospers.

[Mementomoridc]

That's only part of the problem. The main issue is that Mali has an insane reproduction rate, which means that there'll be enough fighters to rise up for any organization or ideology, no matter how ed up, as long as it promises them a piece of the cake. And there'll be still enough people to spare who'll emigrate and take their problems to other parts of the world. So what's most needed in Mali, and really in all of Africa, is more education for the local women, in order to enable them to use birth control and increase their leverage in society. Then there'll be a chance that the region stabilizes and maybe even prospers.

I agree with you completely, the problem is to do that is you have to solidify the nation for at lest a generation or two at the very lest to gain anything from it. How outside of sending in troops to stop the fighting which is what I was talking about in the cost part of my post can we do that. So the options are, they them try and fix things on their own. Or try and play police (which pisses everyone off except the people saved in the short therm), and hope that we can create the base for a future for them. As Afghanistan has shown us that is not a great way to try and do things.

[Caelifer_1991]

That's only part of the problem. The main issue is that Mali has an insane reproduction rate, which means that there'll be enough fighters to rise up for any organization or ideology, no matter howed up, as long as it promises them a piece of the cake. And there'll be still enough people to spare who'll emigrate and take their problems to other parts of the world. So what's most needed in Mali, and really in all of Africa, is more education for the local women, in order to enable them to use birth control and increase their leverage in society. Then there'll be a chance that the region stabilizes and maybe even prospers.

I disagree, Africa's population density is the second lowest on Earth, trailing only Oceania/ Australasia. Increasing population density serves to reduce the relative costs of defence, provides additional labour thus reducing its cost, increases the domestic market, reduces the relative cost of infrastructure projects, increases the tax-base, and so on. One might look at other areas of the world with low population densities but which are successful, such as Canada or Australia, and say "why is Africa not like that?", but in those cases what populations they have are largely centralised in key areas rather than spread out more evenly across millions of square kilometres. Africa's low population density is actually an impediment, and while it would be best if it didn't become another India, it would in fact be beneficial if it were to become another Europe.

The flip side of the coin to this is the currently low number of working adults as a percentage of the population there, the more children that are born, the greater the share of the population that dependants take up, preventing capital accumulation, the growth of the middle class, and per capita growth. Is this worth it in the long run? Well basically yes, it is, but it needs to be matched with a reduction in internal trade barriers between African states, further improvement in the standard of governance and most critically, continuous investment into infrastructure. These methods combined may serve to improve labour mobility, reduce labour costs, administrative costs and logistical costs, thus bringing down the overall cost of production, and so spurring on industrial growth - the real driver of prosperity for a developing region.

Now, if a gradual decrease in birth rate were to happen simultaneously with this process, than the result would be similar to China, eg, an even greater increase in the supply of working adults relative to the overall population, and so faster per capita growth rates alongside aggregate growth rates. This is in fact, a good idea, but not for another couple of decades, so that the natural working population boom is compounded with more favourable demographic conditions.

[athanaric]

[FONT=Verdana]I disagree, Africa's population density is the second lowest on Earth, trailing only Oceania/ Australasia.

That's because half of Africa is a ing desert, which can't support a high population density. Incidentally, the countries with the highest population growth rates in Africa are located in very dry areas (except South Sudan, which is part desert/semi-desert, part swamp basically), and all they're doing with population growth right now is making war and exporting large numbers of people to Europe. Compare this with China - the main part is very densely populated because of the availability of critical resources such as water and arable land, but the western provinces are very thinly populated because they're about as habitable as most of Mali, or Somalia, is.

Increasing population density serves to reduce the relative costs of defence, provides additional labour thus reducing its cost, increases the domestic market, reduces the relative cost of infrastructure projects, increases the tax-base, and so on. One might look at other areas of the world with low population densities but which are successful, such as Canada or Australia, and say "why is Africa not like that?", but in those cases what populations they have are largely centralised in key areas rather than spread out more evenly across millions of square kilometres. Africa's low population density is actually an impediment, and while it would be best if it didn't become another India, it would in fact be beneficial if it were to become another Europe.

The flip side of the coin to this is the currently low number of working adults as a percentage of the population there, the more children that are born, the greater the share of the population that dependants take up, preventing capital accumulation, the growth of the middle class, and per capita growth. Is this worth it in the long run? Well basically yes, it is, but it needs to be matched with a reduction in internal trade barriers between African states, further improvement in the standard of governance and most critically, continuous investment into infrastructure. These methods combined may serve to reduce labour costs, administrative costs and logistical costs, bringing down the overall cost of production, and thus spurring on industrial growth - the real driver of prosperity for a developing region.

I'm all for curbing inner-African trade barriers and fighting corruption and the like, but you have to take into account the above - not all African countries can match Central European or East Asian countries in population density and still expect to function.

[Caelifer_1991]

That's because half of Africa is a ing desert, which can't support a high population density. Incidentally, the countries with the highest population growth rates in Africa are located in very dry areas (except South Sudan, which is part desert/semi-desert, part swamp basically), and all they're doing with population growth right now is making war and exporting large numbers of people to Europe. Compare this with China - the main part is very densely populated because of the availability of critical resources such as water and arable land, but the western provinces are very thinly populated because they're about as habitable as most of Mali, or Somalia, is.


I'm all for curbing inner-African trade barriers and fighting corruption and the like, but you have to take into account the above - not all African countries can match Central European or East Asian countries in population density and still expect to function.

I had expected that you would mention the Sahara (and the other smaller Deserts), and indeed nearly mentioned it in the first post pre-emptively. Since I didn't, I'll just say now, instead, that even accounting for the Sahara, the region is still underpopulated outside of areas such as Nigeria (and it is worth mentioning that this is in absolute terms, not relative terms, as Nigeria has a far greater carrying capacity). Now, while it is true that population densities such as those in East Asia are unlikely to be matched by Africa (and indeed you'll note how I specifically mentioned that it should NOT replicate East Asia's/ India's population density), that still leaves a great deal of room for expansion. Population densities akin to Europe for instance are possible in places such as West Africa (as a whole of course, greater at the coastal regions and less further north), and it is entirely in the best interests of Africa to tend toward that potential, potential that is still many decades off. A continuation of its current birth rates followed by a gradual tapering off of birth rates in a couple of decades, combined with the other factors mentioned and the movement of low tier industry from East Asia (a process that is currently under-way but which will take a couple of decades to pick up when looking at the entire region), will lead in the end to the same stabilised population level 50 years from now anyway, but maximise its potential as regards economic growth in the mean time.

As regards current population densities along the Sahara, well that is true, and largely a product of history, in that they were expanding from a higher base to begin with. Its also true that these areas are among the most volatile: also a product of history, in that many of the states (such as Mali) are largely artificial in their current incarnation, and the Sahel region has enough history that there exist a long list of distinct cultures and histories upon which people have formed identities and nationalities. There is little reason for instance that Songhay should have been tethered to Mali as one state, particularly as they had a history of warfare with each other, yet that is what happened anyway, and the result is playing itself out right now. Does increased population density in these areas also increase the relative scarcity of goods, and increase the supply of labour that, in this case, increases the availability of soldiers? Well, yes, it does, but I can guarantee you that even if its population density was lower, or its supply of working age adults lower, then the situation would still be largely the same, because there exists a thousand years of history that dictates that Mali, as a country, is not likely to continue to exist as a single entity, and this creates the general theme there, rather than any temporal fluctuations in population density.

[ShockBlast]

I disagree, Africa's population density is the second lowest on Earth, trailing only Oceania/ Australasia.

I disagree, they do not have the land of Europe, USA, China or India.Africa is poor in soil productivity and resources in general compared to the rest of the world.

The last thing we need a overpopulated Africa, they are poor because they are many and they are many because they are poor.

The problem with Africa is that they have access to modern healthcare, well sort of, but they are even more primitive them medieval Europe with their tribal mentality.

If we want to help Africa, the ONLY help that we should give is financing the education and nothing else.

[LinusLinothorax]

I disagree, they do not have the land of Europe, USA, China or India. Africa is poor in soil productivity and resources in general compared to the rest of the world Africa offers gold, copper, wood, diamonds, oil and technically everything else. This is the first time i have read that someone says Africa lacks ressources.

The last thing we need a overpopulated Africa, they are poor because they are many and they are many because they are poor Most parts of Africa are poor because Europeans ed the whole continet up and to most extent still do.

The problem with Africa is that they have access to modern healthcare, well sort of, but they are even more primitive them medieval Europe with their tribal mentalityUnbacked, 19. century stereotypes, anyone?

If we want to help Africa, the ONLY help that we should give is financing the education and nothing else.