France and its African Allies Want the UN to Send Armored Force to Mali

France and its African allies are pushing for a heavily armed force to be part of a possible U.N. peacekeeping mission. From Reuters:
The United Nations is considering setting up a 10,000-strong force in the former French colony before presidential and legislative elections in July, a deadline a European diplomat described on Tuesday as "a race against time".
U.N. deputy peacekeeping chief Edmond Mulet is in the Malian capital Bamako this week to assess options for a peacekeeping mission once a French-led military intervention that began two months ago is completed.
A heavily armed rapid-reaction force, similar to the unit proposed for a U.N. mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, would be a departure from its typically more passive peacekeeper operations.
In practical terms, U.N. diplomats say, troops in the rapid-response force would have more freedom to open fire without being required to wait until they are attacked first, a limitation usually placed on U.N. peacekeepers around the world.
Other recent news from Mali includes reports that not only are many Chadians becoming increasingly frustrated by the conflict in Mali, but that a Malian newspaper editor is under arrest after publishing a letter critical of Mali's coup leader's salary and that Malian soldiers are engaging in reprisal attacks against Tuaregs and Arabs. While it is true that French and Chadian forces have been making progress in the northeast of Mali the country that they are trying to free from the threat of Islamic militants is not looking like the stable country many would like to see.
At the moment a U.N. peacekeeping force (let alone a heavily armored one) has not been authorized. The French, who are trying to organize a withdrawal from their former colony, must deal with remaining Islamic militants in the northeast and worrying developments in the rest of Mali while diplomats debate the possibility of a U.N. peacekeeping force.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And the children of Mali quake in fear.
Bout time those 10 year old Malians got jobs.
If it's wrong to have closed borders because closed borders violate the individual rights of non-Americans who don't live here but want to, why is it wrong to use our military might overseas if doing so will prevent violations of the individual rights of non-Americans?
Reason's logic in toto is some kind of complicated knot.
One scenario involves forcibly taking money from people to finance a mission that is not necessary to protect their security, and the other does not involve that. Pretty simple
Because the first case interferes with the freedom of individuals to agree to rent out domiciles and contract for labor, and the second case involves armed aggression.
Does the analysis change if we take into account the tendency of open borders to increase the tax burden and the accompanying use of armed aggression to collect said taxes?
"Does the analysis change if we take into account the tendency of open borders to increase the tax burden"
Does it? Obviously spending will go up if there are more people, but is this demonstrably greater than not only the taxes paid by immigrants, but on the increased profits of businesses, etc? And even then, you'd be restricting the freedom of individuals based on a generality about a group they belong to, which is something libertarians are supposed to be against. And in any case, that's not relevant to the initial question you posed. Just admit it was a bad analogy
Not at all. It is the collection of the taxes and the people doing the collecting that are the problems. The people crossing the border are not morally responsible for the guy with the gun collecting money.
What part of moral action do you not understand?
Armedarmored
There was supposed to be a not equal symbol there.
PWND
No kidding stability won't come quick or at all. It's Mali. It is what it is. Let it not be controlled by liberty hating violent Islamists though!
I know right? 10+ years down the line, I want to know that France is still doing it's utmost best to stabilize Mali.
Surrender monkeys won't last that long.
I have a sinking feeling that fighting insurgents in Africa will give a whole new meaning to the word "quagmire."
I don't think they can have a quagmire. There's not enough water.
France and its African Allies Want the UN to Send Armored Force to Mali
An "armored force"?! In Africa?!
/Monty Python and the Meaning of Life
You know who else had an armored force in Africa?
Rommel?
Hannibal?
Richard Burton?
Armored force? You mean like knights on horseback?
Never really thought about it like that before man
http://www.EliteAnon.tk