Silence: The World's Reaction to Islamism in Mali

This could be a fun exercise: point out Mali on the world map. Much like Iraq, many adults likely do not know where Mali is, or even possibly what continent it is on. Somewhat ironically, many have likely heard of Timbuktu, the ancient center of learning, which is found in present-day Mali. Although the general population is much unaware of Mali, it is deplorable that statesmen around the world, unceremoniously including those here in the US, are ignoring the situation in Mali.

To give a quick rundown. In March, soldiers staged a coup and ousted the government. Tuareg rebels, more or less tied to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), quickly expanded their insurgency and now all-but control the country's north. Meanwhile, a military government, propped up by the coup, continues to control the quickly deteriorating government, or what's left of it. The ingredients for a failed state are quickly manifesting themselves and mixing into a violent concoction.

International reaction? Condemnation. US reaction? None, though a quick Google search does show that the US has now allotted $10 million for Malian refugees. The F-22 Raptor fighter plane costs $150 million a pop. By the time that money reaches Mali, it will be all-but spent.

In summary, the international reaction has resembled a couple of crickets having a conversation. While the West seemingly focuses its attention to its own crises, it ignores the problems brewing on its borders. Mali is ever close to the countries clinging to delicate democratic ideals and processes borne out of the Arab Spring. More critically, Mali's lawless north presents an opportunity for Muslim extremists to carve out space for independent action. It's happened in Africa before, with Sudan and Libya entertaining some relationships with international terrorists. But Mali is a new case - there is no strongman keeping it together. Mali is closer to Afghanistan - remote and on the verge of collapse. So while Syria is a trendy topic, Mali is ignored.

It seems that, with every moment, the world leans closer to collapse. The West is so enamored with saving its own economies that it fails to ignore the problems that may affect those economies in the not-too-distant future. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, condemnation isn't enough. Action is needed if Mali is to regain its internal sovereignty. While Mali may no longer be critical to the international system as in its heyday, it would be wise for the international community to think critically and support, either directly or indirectly, the capacity Mali requires to avoid it becoming a hotbed for international terrorism.

A Grip on Egypt

An interesting dynamic is unfolding in Egypt between the armed forces and the newly-minted president. Following the conclusion of the presidential election on June 17th, it took the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) about a week to declare Mohamed Morsi the winner, even though the Muslim Brotherhood declared their candidate the winner as early as the morning of June 18th and it was fairly clear to most observers who had won. Internationally, rumors swirled that SCAF was not willing to cede power to an Islamist candidate. Meanwhile, SCAF dissolved parliament and reverted its powers back to SCAF.


Clearly, a careful game of chess is being played that will determine who truly controls the new Egypt. The world is watching to see whether Egypt will regress to military-style authoritarianism, progress to some middle-ground of democracy, or shift toward religious autocracy. But doesn't Turkey already represent a regional model where the armed forces continue to wield great power even with relative democracy? Turkey surely has had a different history, but has, in recent years, worked to include religious parties into government. The issue may truly be then the stability of those armed forces, perhaps not in terms of political stability, as both Turkey and Egypt have strong militaries, but in terms of funding.

Both Turkey and Egypt have been recipients of significant U.S. military aid. Direct grants to Turkey largely stopped in the late 1990s, though Turkey does continue to receive aid in other forms. Egypt continues to receive direct military aid to this day. Taking an example, Turkey received received several hundred million dollars in 1998, out of a military budget of $7.2 billion USD. Meanwhile, in 2010, Egypt was the third largest recipient of military assistance, outpaced by only Afghanistan and Israel. Egypt received $1.3 billion in military aid that year. Egypt's military budget meanwhile, has seemingly dropped from around $4.6 billion in 2010 to closer to $4 billion in 2011, likely more than partly due to the Arab Spring. All this means an increasing reliance on US military aid, which makes up more than a quarter of the military's source of funds now.

US military aid to Egypt is largely based on its ability to maintain stability in the region. From a US perspective, that stability is directly tied to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979, a treaty that has always rested on shaky ground in Egypt, but has maintained its status under authoritarian leadership. This is the same treaty that Mr. Morsi has said he would "reconsider." No peace treaty. No military aid. No military. Therefore, it is clearly in the military's best interests to maintain the peace treaty. It ensures continued aid from the US, which helps secure SCAF's power within Egypt.


So who then has the grip on power in Egypt? Is it the military, who need the US? Is it Mr. Morsi, who risks being vulnerable without the military? Or is it the US, who keeps the aid flowing? Clearly, the US role in Egypt's future is more prominent than either Egypt or the US would like to admit. Perhaps a better balancing of aid, between military and other forms, would give the parties jostling over Egypt's future the right incentives to full, long-term democracy.