French mixed on new mission
Security tightened as citizens wonder ‘Why Mali, not Syria?’
PARIS— Inside cafés, on talk radio and throughout the streets of Paris, there is hot debate on why exactly modern-day France finds itself at war in Africa.
Last week, French President François Hollande took decisive action by intervening in Mali with the hope of stopping Islamist extremist activity. Nearly 1,400 French troops are reportedly in the West African nation that was a colony of France until 1960.
Support throughout France for what they call “l’Opération Serval” is mixed. Some are immensely proud that their country has stood up to help stabilize the extremely poor nation and believe France had no choice. Others question the move and wonder why they got involved in Mali but not Syria.
“The French needed to go to Mali,” French-Algerian citizen Far Hocele said in Montreuil, a suburb of Paris where many Malians live.
“There are only two armies in Europe that could — the French or the British. If the French don’t go, it will be awful. It will be like Afghanistan.”
He noted that Mali’s neighbours include Algeria, Mauritania and Niger.
“This is not just about Mali. The other neighbouring countries are rich in resources,” Hocele said. “This could potentially be very big. Mali is a strategic place.” On newsstands, French magazines and newspapers expressed contrasting views. The cover of the popular French news magazine L’Express features Hollande with a bold headline that reads: “Islam- ism: The wars of François Hollande.” And in the daily Le Monde newspaper, which has devoted pages of coverage to the war every day, an opinion piece asks if France is truly prepared for an intervention in Mali and what the chances of success are. Security has been tightened at landmarks and other key sites throughout France because there is fear its involvement in Mali could make it a target for retaliatory attacks. That was given as a motive by the militants who took dozens of hostages — including an unknown number of French citizens — at a gas facility in Algeria this week. However, other than the more vigilant presence of armed soldiers in camouflage travelling in groups of three around tourist sites, it was business as usual in Paris on Friday.
“I am not worried of a terrorist threat,” said David Leuje as he folded sweaters in a store on Avenue de l’Opéra. “It was a good thing for us to go to Mali. We took a stand.”
That seems to be an attitude many Parisians are taking. Christian Pilichowski, who works in the national office of the CGT, the largest French trade union, said it was no surprise that France intervened.
“I am not worried of a terrorist threat. It was a good thing for us to go to Mali. We took a stand.” DAVID LEUJE PARIS SHOP CLERK
Just because France has its own internal problems doesn’t mean it should forget its international obligations, Pilichowski said.
“We can’t say that because of the financial crisis in France and Europe, we have nothing to do in Africa,” he said. But not everyone feels this way. In Lyon, translator Celine Foggie said France should not have got involved because it is no longer Mali’s colonial master.
“The intervention of France is not only as patronizing as a colonialist country can be with its ex-colony, but it is also serving its own financial interest,” she said. “After all, Mali has petrol, gold and diamonds. And Syria doesn’t.”
In 2011, France was one of the first to act against the Moammar Gadhafi regime in Libya. The move surprised many but it earned thenFrench president Nicolas Sarkozy favour at home.