U.N. authorizes African force to take on al Qaeda in Mali … The 15-nation U.N. Security Council on Thursday unanimously authorized the deployment of an African-led military force to help defeat al Qaeda and other Islamist militants in northern Mali. The French-drafted resolution also authorized the 27-nation European Union and other U.N. member states to help rebuild the Malian security forces, who are to be assisted by the international African force during an operation in northern Mali that is not expected to begin before September 2013. The adoption of the resolution was the result of a compromise that ended weeks of disagreements between the United States and France over how best to tackle the problem of Mali, where al Qaeda-linked insurgents seized vast swathes of territory in March. – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: Al Qaeda is spreading.
Free-Market Analysis: The UN is being drawn into war. This "deployment of troops" in Africa will take place in Mali (see excerpt above) but probably expand, as the actual theatre occupies much of upper Africa, a region about the size of the lower United States.
War and more war. There are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of what is about to occur. It all begins with the Tuaregs, a blue-daubed fierce tribe of warriors who are part of the larger Berber peoples that were recognized by the UN in the 1990s as legitimate claimants of the northern African Maghreb that spans Tunisia, Libya, Niger and Algeria.
After the destabilization of Libya, a Tuareg rebellion took place throughout the African Maghreb and also destabilized parts of Mali. Wikipedia explains the following:
The Tuareg Rebellion of 2012, part of the 2012 northern Mali conflict, was a war of independence against the Malian government in the Sahara desert region of Azawad. It was led by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and was part of a series of insurgencies by traditionally nomadic Tuaregs which date back at least to 1916. The MNLA was formed by former insurgents and a significant number of heavily armed Tuaregs who fought in the Libyan civil war.
On 22 March, President Amadou Toumani Touré was ousted in a coup d'état over his handling of the crisis, a month before a presidential election was to have taken place. Mutineering soldiers, under the banner of the National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and State, (CNRDR) suspended the constitution of Mali, although this move was reversed on 1 April.
The Islamist group Ansar Dine, too, began fighting the government in later stages of the conflict, claiming control of vast swathes of territory, albeit disputed by the MNLA. As a consequence of the instability following the coup, Northern Mali's three largest cities—Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu—were overrun by the rebels on three consecutive days. On 5 April, after the capture of Douentza, the MNLA said that it had accomplished its goals and called off its offensive. The following day, it proclaimed Azawad's independence from Mali.
What is evident is that the fighting between secularist Tuaregs and Islamic Tuaregs has now resolved itself in favor the Islamic factions.
And this is supposedly the reason for the UN involvement.
The Islamic faction of the Tuaregs has arbitrarily been declared to be "Al Qaeda." Thus, the West has been drawn into a war via the UN that will surely over time not just encompass Northern Mali but the entire African Maghreb itself.
This is important stuff. The world is being destabilized, is it not? We have been covering the steady erosion of peace and stability in this part of the world because such events are important and illustrate what we call elite "directed history."
The "Internet Reformation" has shown us clearly how a small power elite is leading the world toward global governance using authoritarianism, economic depression and, of course, war.
Usually, the powers-that-be like to use what we call dominant social themes, fear-based promotions that frighten people into giving up wealth and power to globalist facilities. But increasingly, outright war is being used as a tool to counter the effects of the Internet.
The fog of war provides more latitude to the ruling elites and allows them to mobilize society on a vast scale and to claim that authoritarian measures depriving people of freedom are necessary to "fight the enemy."
The enemy doesn't really matter so long as it provides justifications for additional anti-democratic elite moves. In this case, there is plenty of evidence that the West has cultivated the Tuareg takeover of Mali and even expected, or at least welcomed, the Islamic insurgency that the rebellion has now become.
It is the scope of the conflict that people should be aware of. Region by region, this war has been built. Tunisia, Libya, Niger, the Ivory Coast – even Egypt – the entire upper part of Africa is now involved in violence that has been sparked by "youth rebellions." There are so many of them that the US State Department has even stopped delineating them by color. And very few if any are resolved yet.
Egypt is ripped by riots. Tunisia, too. In Libya, secularist tribes enraged by Muammar Gaddafi's ouster intend to take the country back – and the West has surely encouraged the Tuareg insurgency to occupy the pro-Gaddafi secularists in Libya.
It is almost impossible to overstate the scope of what is being built and the length of time that these conflicts may rage. Take a look above Africa and see that Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Turkey are also involved in conflicts of varying intensities.
Altogether a landmass stretching across Africa and the Middle East has been stoked into conflict. And let's not forget Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. And Somalia, as well – where the West has set up a proxy war between Kenya and Al-Shabab.
Not a single bit of it, from what we can tell, is justified. In fact, there is no reason for any of these wars, not if one grants that the CIA was initially responsible for Al Qaeda and has assiduously fanned the flames of religious fundamentalism ever since.
Now the UN is becoming directly embroiled in Mali. Some more from the Reuters article:
The resolution authorizes the deployment for an initial period of one year of an African-led intervention force, to be known as AFISMA, to take "all necessary measures, in compliance with applicable international humanitarian law and human rights law."
The phrase "all necessary measures" is diplomatic code for military force. AFISMA is expected to have up to 3,300 troops and will assist the rebuilt Malian security forces "in recovering the areas in the north of its territory under the control of terrorist, extremist and armed groups."
The French text leaves open the question of how the international force will be funded. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has recommended against straight U.N. funding for the operation, suggesting that it be financed through voluntary contributions.
The voluntary approach appeals to neither France nor the AU. The resolution calls on Ban to submit a report to the council on funding options. The Security Council does not have to accept Ban's recommendation, though envoys say it may be difficult for the French to sway the council to support direct U.N. funding.
U.N. officials say Ban dislikes the idea of the United Nations providing direct financial and logistical support for the initial operation to dislodge al Qaeda from northern Mali because it will be a messy fight, with a simple goal of killing as many militants as possible.
Western media prides itself on its hard-hitting coverage of current events and claims to "speak truth to power." But here we have a situation where one-quarter of the world has been set ablaze by a series of monstrously inconsequential events – and coverage is woefully lacking.
In the 21st century, this is how the world becomes a battleground – stealthily, country by country – without anyone really noticing … or commenting.
The Internet has made it possible for us to watch what is taking shape. We are grateful for the opportunity even though the vision is certainly discouraging.