In Mali there is also shooting

Two-thirds of Germans are against an expansion of Bundeswehr operations abroad. In principle, the use abroad has been legal since the highly controversial judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 12 July 1994. But a majority of citizens still do not consider all of the “missions” to be legitimate. German participation in the Syrian war is even contradicted by three-quarters of all respondents, despite the provocative nature of the investigation.


The proportion of people who fundamentally oppose military action abroad and vote in favour of the complete withdrawal of the Bundeswehr is now 39 percent. Nevertheless, at the G7 summit in August, at the behest of French President Macron and Chancellor Merkel, it was decided to step up military efforts in the Sahel, especially in Mali. The Tagesschau slammed the German advance to its television audience. Whatever else.

Soldiers in Mali

Germany, therefore, against the will of its people, but at the instigation of its government, is once again in the process of assuming “more responsibility internationally.” Such sultry phrases serve in this country as well as military acts of aggression. glossover. Under the propagandist cloud of haze, majorities form in parliament that do not care about the views and interests of their voters any more than the Merkel government itself.

What really stands with Germany’s “assumption of responsibility” has been demonstrated by the treatment of the relatives of the more than 120 unarmed children and young men who, ten years ago, on 4 September 2009, on the orders of the German colonel Georg Klein, Afghanistan died in the hail of bombs. There was neither compensation nor a formal Berlin request for forgiveness.

Kundus is war crime

To this day, the exact number of victims, their age and status are obscured in accordance with the Geneva Conventions (fighters or civilians?). But Klein, whom many consider to be a war criminal, was promoted to brigadier general; the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf rejected a murder charge against him.

Now our defenders of the fatherland also have the finger on the trigger in Mali.

In northern Mali, the Berber people of the Tuareg had tried an uprising against the government in Mali in 2013 in order to force their state independence. The weapons for this came from Libya, the country that NATO, led by France, the US and Britain, had bombed into chaos eight years ago. The Tuareg first allied themselves with al-Qaeda (whose Syrian branch is currently called “moderate rebels”) and with IS jihadists. However, ISIS soon opposed the Tuareg and began to extend its zone of influence to the south, towards the capital of the Republic of Mali, Bamako.

As a result, France intervened militarily and tried to bring the situation under control. Why France? Because it was a colonial power in this African region until 1960 (“French-Sudan”) and is interested in continued exploitation: the area is rich in mineral resources. Most importantly, uranium, which is mined by French companies in Mali and is urgently needed by France’s nuclear power plants. The formal basis of the military “Operation Serval” was a request for assistance from Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita and a UN Security Council resolution.

However, the IS jihadists and their terrorist entourage could no longer be crushed, not even by the “specialists” of the French Foreign Legion, neither in Mali nor in the entire Sahel region. Operation Serval was followed a year later, in 2014, by the much larger French military mission “Operation Barkhane”. In their frame, French soldiers were permanently stationed in both Mali and Chad. They are supported by an “intervention force” of the Sahel countries of Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Burkina Faso, the so-called “G5 Sahel”. It consists of 5 000 soldiers, is financed by the European Union and trained, among other things, by German soldiers. Their mission, if not seen, is to wage a late colonialist proxy war.

In Mali, up to 350 Bundeswehr soldiers are currently training the G5 Sahel Army. This is done within the framework of the EU training mission EUTM. But this does not, of course, exhaust Germany’s willingness to “international responsibility” in Mali. The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (Minusma) is still to be discussed. It is a so-called “robust mandate”, i.e. a combat mission. The 11,000 soldiers on this mission include about 850 Germans.

Minusma is one of the most dangerous UN operations in the world, with 191 deaths of its own so far. Most of the soldiers are from West African states and Bangladesh. The Bundeswehr is not directly involved in combat operations, but is involved in their preparation: it carries out reconnaissance operations. The main burden of the fighting is borne by the French army, again decisively by foreign legionnaires. From a mercenary troupe, just like in colonial times…

The fact that the Europeans agreed at the G7 conference in August 2019 to organise “further measures” in Africa did not show up in the television news of the Tagesschau for its eleven million viewers. On August 25, 2019, there was only a post with a fig leaf function in the Internet niche tagesschau.de:

France, together with Germany and the backing of the G7, wants to offer assistance to the five countries of the so-called Sahel in the fight against terrorism and instability. There have been many recent terrorist attacks in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Chad in the south of the Sahara. In some regions, governments are increasingly losing control.

So what exactly should that mean? What kind of help in the “fight against terrorism”? At what cost? To be paid by whom in which shares? What role does the Bundeswehr play? The informational claim of this Tagesschau article is zero. But, according to the obvious Daily Show logic, we cannot/should not/must not do better and offer more substance than our dear Chancellor prefaces in her well-known speeches for the people:

We have made considerable efforts to move development forward, but at the same time we are facing a deteriorating security situation and we know that development is not possible without security. That is why we need to strengthen security.

Great. What the good knows. In this performance, she has enough phrases and empty generalities in it: “Promote development”. “Deteriorated security situation”. “Strengthening security”. The chancellor always moves at a flat level when she has to deal publicly with the unpleasant topic of “war missions of the Bundeswehr”:

But our security also depends on what it looks like in other regions of the world. And that is why we are participating in foreign missions with the Bundeswehr. But we are never isolated, but at the heart of our concerns with the resolution of crises or the prevention that certain crises do not arise in the first place.

The “speech bubble machine in trouser suit” (formula of the cabaret artist Volker Pispers) has just had the experience that one can successfully feed the quality journaille with such zero numbers. The Tagesschau does not ask what the nonsense is supposed to do.

Merkel goes to war.

The editorial board does not ask what the Bundeswehr has actually done in Mali, one of the poorest countries in the world, in the six years of its engagement since 2013. She does not confront the chancellor with the fact that, despite huge material efforts, the Europeans have not improved the situation in the Sahel. Our pseudo-reconnaissance officers are not interested in the causes of this political failure. Neither ARD-aktuell nor the chancellor even lose a word about what might actually be the special German interest to engage with the German military and hundreds of millions of euros in a remote region like the Sahel. That would be the first and most important question to be answered.

We have to put the old record on again:

In their offers, the public service broadcasters have provided a comprehensive overview of the international … to happen… to give.

ARD-aktuell does not fulfil this task, but only delivers impositions, ensnared by the Chancellor’s O-tones. As is so often the case, you have to look outside the ARD-aktuell news offerings for information if you want to form a reasonably qualified judgement. On the Internet. On 13 April 2016, the Federal Government’s motion for a decision in the Bundestag stated:

The German commitment in Mali brings … in a cross-departmental approach, German foreign, security and development policy is used in a complementary way to achieve the goal of a long-term stable, democratic, development-oriented state embedded in the region.

Also still quite cryptic, but at least somewhat enriched Merkel level. Three years later, on April 3, 2019, although sultry as usual, but already quite clear:

The aim is to contribute in perspective to the consolidation of state structures, to promote internal security, and to support the Malian government in providing political and economic prospects for the population and thus to provide the living conditions of the people in to improve Mali and to support improved management of flight and migration, including mitigation of the causes of flight and migration.

The CSU deputy Dr. Volker Ullrich adhered to the language regulation for military missions abroad. The speakers of the CSU, SPD, GRÜNEn and FDP also take part in the language veil dances in the Bundestag (the speakers of the LINKEn and the AfD, on the other hand, like to sit out):

With the extension of the Bundeswehr deployment in Mali, we assume a special responsibility. We are doing this because this stabilisation mission, with more than 50 participating nations and over 11,000 soldiers, is embedded in international responsibility. But the responsibility also stems from the fact that this operation is demanding and dangerous. And yet it is necessary and responsible because … we have a responsibility for West Africa and the Sahel as a whole. We cannot, on the one hand, take on more responsibility … and talk about the stabilization of state structures and, on the other hand, do not be present in this important operation. It is about the enforcement of human rights, about stabilising civil society and, ultimately, about creating conditions in the Sahel that will make the lives of the people there better.

Such flowery word garlands are typical parliamentary hypocrisy: “We” are therefore also on the road in Africa with our military for deeply altruistic reasons and pure mercy. Its “mission”: to help the people living there in the most bitter poverty to have a human right in our own way.


Our noble spirit, demonstrated by armoured vehicles, “Heron” drones and automatic rapid-fire weapons, is consolidated in the world-famous German model of democracy, the nonplusultra of social coexistence. With such boxes under their arms, journalists run into the German audience and pass through classical chauvinism, beautifully packaged. They help to cover up, rather than uncover, the quest for power of our elites and their profit interest in Bundeswehr operations.

The CDU member of parliament Ursula Groden-Kranich was left to come to the reactionary cause. To the applause of the Union and the SPD, she confessed that the purpose of the military operation was to combat “causes of flight”. This speaker clearly did not feel shame at the fact that the military does not have to fight the causes of the flight, but the flight, and that she moved openly with this argument on the territory of the AfD:

It is also an important objective to limit irregular migration and not to open up a new escape route for smugglers in Africa. What is not possible: wanting more stability in Africa, wanting to fight the causes of flight, wanting to be part of a strong Europe in the world, but at the same time always shying away from defence spending and deploreing the dangerof foreign missions, that is Irresponsible.

Do our “people’s representatives” really and sincerely want to create conditions in the Sahel that make the lives of the people there better? If that were the intention, however, there would be more effective and humane uses for the Euromillions that Germany pulverizes annually for military action in Mali. Actions that end people’s lives, not make them better. In a country where every second resident has to try to exist with less than 1.12 euros per day.

The Bundeswehr deployment in Mali costs at least 350 million euros a year. Between 2015 and 2017, germany spent a total of only 73 million euros to support civilian projects in Mali, i.e. an average of around 25 million euros per year. In other words, 7 percent of the total military spending. Or: 14 times more for the own military than for civilian aid for the benefit of the locals.

This is the basic pattern of German policy for raising the quality of life in Mali. Those who still have their five senses together cannot overlook the discrepancy between the self-righteous moralizing serenity of the cross-party war faction in the Reichstag and the real consequences of their political shamelessness. The disproportion of civilian to military support reveals low attitudes.

Mali is a neoliberal country. Its 18.5 million inhabitants are harassed by “reform programmes” of the World Bank, overwhelmed with questionable privatizations and constantly encouraged to give foreign and Malian private investors profitable market shares.

Interesting for the “Western community of values” are the country’s natural resources, and when you look at it, all the hypocrisy of the West and its democratic political moralists becomes immediately visible: Mali exports gold annually for about 2.31 billion euros. The sale of gold covers 62 percent of total exports. Mali is the third largest gold supplier in the world after South Africa and Ghana.

However, relatively little remains of the yield of the gold mines in the country. It is international corporations such as the US financial investor Randgold Resources Ltd., based in the European tax haven of Jersey, that are filling their pockets. The Malian state has less than twenty percent of the profits of the gold mines. However, this meagre share already represents the majority of Mali’s total foreign exchange income.

“Take responsibility, enforce human rights”? It is shameful that German politicians dare to tease such empty straw in the face of the reality of life in Mali. Where they could take action, they leave their hands in their lap: human rights violations by the authorities in Mali are the order of the day against miners. However, the German leading and corporate media do not provide information about deaths during hunger strikes due to outstanding wages, about state repression, with which any protest against misery is suffocated.

The Tagesschau certainly does not allow us to take a look at this side of everyday life in Mali. There are also no indications that our magnificent Foreign Minister has come forward because of the human rights violations in Bamako. Questions in the Bundestag? Misreporting. Requests from the Tagesschau editorial team? Dito. The show “Tim Mälzer kocht” would be more informative.

ARD-aktuell also conceals, of course, the fact that the “anti-terrorist operation” of the French military (“Barkhane”) supported by the Bundeswehr is primarily used to provide the essential uranium supplies from the French electricity industry. neighbouring Niger. At the beginning of the Franco-German intervention, the “Economic Week” wrote:

The only known and strategically important European interests in the region are the uranium and oil deposits in Mali and the French uranium mines in neighbouring Niger. France, as a nuclear power and a nuclear power country, depends heavily on the supply of uranium. France gets a third of its uranium needs from Niger. In order to prevent further destabilization of the country, France is now intervening in Mali.

That is clear. Free from morals about help to protect human rights and on the alleged “fight against causes of flight”. A commentary of The Economic Week of 17 January 2013 states even more clearly

The war in Mali, as in almost every war on the African continent, is about raw materials and, of course, political influence.

The Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) also acknowledged:

In addition, German and European investors are suffering from the crisis. For example, the share price of the Frankfurt-based investment company Pearl Gold, which has a stake in a Malian gold company, slumped by 25 percent after the military coup in March 2012. The solution to the Sahel crisis is therefore in the very interests of Europe and Germany.

Thank you, dear Conny-Boys! Now almost everyone has probably strapped it: German politics does not follow morality, but serves interests.

But it will probably take some time before the Tagesschau editors get it. Until they are allowed to say it – what an unrealistic premise! – they will continue to harass their audience with the impure political chatter about German responsibility in Africa, when there is to be talk of late colonialism exploitation.

To conceal this inhumanity, Europeans were very pleased that the United Nations gave a mandate for the use of blue helmets. The French military strikes were thus given a sky-blue camouflage painting under international law and were also accepted because they were increasingly directed against terrorist jihadists.

As we all know, the fight against al-Qaeda and IS justifies many things.

Finely neat and dignified double-tongued, however, the Value West distinguishes between “good” and “evil” jihadists. If they carry out their murderous craft in Syria, they are benevolently called “moderate rebels” and are sometimes called “armed opposition” in the Tagesschau. They are even allowed to take out “hurled” poison gas attacks, because the West can then blame them on the Syrian army. But if the head cutters become active in Africa’s oil fields, i.e. in “our” front yard, then the alarm bells are ringing in Europe. And the Berlin parliamentary schizos get the fracking because of military action flatulence.

The Tagesschau, however, does not notice this in its reporting. What does the German public actually learn from the miracle lamp in the living room about what is happening in the States of the Sahel? Does it know exactly what risks are involved with the military deployment not only of its own troops in the region?

Tagesschau - Das Letzte

An outstanding example of journalistic secrecy: according to the statement of the french Defence Minister Florence Parly has killed 450 jihadists since the summer of 2014 as part of “Operation Barkhane”. Was there really no “collateral damage” among these 450 dead? No victim of chance?

There are reports of some particularly horrific massacres, allegedly carried out by the terrorists, but only in the sensational tabloid style: without background, often without any substantial statement about the perpetrators. For this reason, it is hardly known that the perpetrators are by no means always only Islamist terrorists of IS IS and al-Qaeda, but that “self-defense groups” of various Malian tribes also participate in the terrible crimes, and sometimes even even Uniformed. Who they are is not clear on whose behalf they are murdering, certainly not: armed Islamists, criminals, foreign mercenaries?

The Malian soldiers trained by the Bundeswehr are also known for brutal acts of violence, and the Tagesschau is also silent about this. Last year, a Unit of the Malian Army belonging to the G5 Sahel force had “arbitrarily executed” twelve civilians in the border town of Boulikessi in Burkina Faso, according to a report by Minusma. The massacre was an act of revenge for an attack in which a Malian soldier was killed.

A member of the Left summed up in the Bundestag:

UN investigators have previously reported on similar incidents: Malian soldiers had set fire to houses, kidnapped civilians and shot them … In addition, 44 cases of extrajudicial executions by Malian soldiers are being investigated … If the Bundeswehr trains soldiers who act in this way, then Germany also bears joint responsibility for their victims. … then… (but we) are also responsible for consequences

His remarks left no impression on the overwhelming majority of the Bundestag.

As expected, the government radio ARD-aktuell also remained silent on the attacks by the Bundeswehr partners. One reason for this disgusting conformism: Hard facts about the Bundeswehr “mission” in Mali could further increase the contempt and rejection that the average German citizen feels for the political operation in the Reichstag. The rejection of Bundeswehr deployments abroad could increase even further.

While Germany and Europe have steadily increased their “commitment to greater security and stability”, the number of deaths in terrorist attacks and in battles between militias and security forces in the Sahel has multiplied. In 2012, there were 587, last year five times as many: 2,868. More than 3,200 people have been killed this year. But who asks? They are mostly just Africans, aren’t they?

Violence and insecurity are also spreading geographically. Until 2014, virtually only northern Mali was affected by Islamist terror. This year, Burkina Faso, to the south, has also suffered more than 1,000 attacks. Both countries have lost control of large parts of their northern and eastern borders and rural areas. The republics of Niger and Chad are also increasingly affected by violence. draft: false

There is chaos in Mali and the other Sahel countries. There is no reasonable doubt that Europe has its share of this. The Minister of Defence of Burkina Faso, Moumina Cheriff Sy, has little good to say about the results of the European military presence in the region:

You may have 4,000 men in the region. They have all the military and technological capabilities. If they really wanted to, they could have defeated the terrorists. So do they have a different agenda?

The German GREENS, i.e. “peace activists” who have been on the warpath for more than two decades, gave their answer back in 2013. Mep Kerstin Müller:

… because it is in our foreign and security policy interest and also in the interest of the EU to Europeanise Africa policy in general. That is also the point, and that is also why my group will vote in favour of both mandates.

To Europeanize Africa policy in general means wanting to enrich itself in the treasures of this continent. If this disgusting thinking and speech in tablet form were present, it could be used as a refractive agent in the veterinary sector, it would even make horses joke.

You can find all Sources in the original Article.