Follow us on social

France and Mali need a time out

France and Mali need a time out

With tensions rising between Paris and the junta in Bamako, a pause in the relationship would benefit both sides and align with US interests.

Analysis | Africa

In 2022, every month brings a new diplomatic low in the French-Malian relationship. Mali’s ruling junta has blended legitimate concerns about sovereignty with more provocative measures designed to antagonize France. For its part, France has allowed itself to be drawn into a petty and counterproductive cycle.

In January, the junta expelled France’s ambassador. In February, France accelerated the end, or at least the drawdown, of its counterterrorism operations in Mali. In March, the Malian government suspended Radio France International and France24. In April, Mali and France plunged into an information war over imputing responsibility for a mass grave discovered (or staged) in northern Mali. And in May, Mali severed defense accords with France and announced that it intends to withdraw from the French-backed G5 Sahel Joint Force, a regional security initiative.

France’s best option, in the current environment, is to take a strategic pause in its efforts to shape Malian politics and the politics of the wider Sahel region. Such a pause would entail reacting indifferently to any further diplomatic provocations from Mali. The pause would also entail encouraging West African regional authorities to ease sanctions on the Malian economy and defer the question of when the junta will hold elections — essentially, France and its West African allies might consider ignoring Mali for the rest of 2022 and shrugging at whatever else the junta comes up with. Such a policy would, admittedly, amount to rewarding the junta for its stubborn refusal to yield power to civilians. Yet punishing and arguing with the junta has not worked, and a diplomatic breather might allow for an opening within a few months — and might also avoid pushing Mali further into the arms of Russia.

A French-Malian pause and then reset would also be in the interest of the United States, especially because Mali is a key piece of an increasingly delicate regional puzzle that involves growing threats to democracy and security in the overwhelming majority of West Africa’s fifteen states. There is little to gain in supporting failing French and regional West African policies, even if those policies theoretically serve U.S. goals such as promoting democracy, countering Russian influence, and containing insurgents. The United States, less resented than France in the Sahel, might try a phase of quiet and exploratory diplomacy aimed at discerning what could bring Mali’s junta to hand power back to civilians. This moment calls for creativity, especially as juntas in Mali’s neighbors Guinea and Burkina Faso take cues from the Malian junta’s defiance of regional and Western powers. There is a middle ground between coddling dictators and turning Mali into a pariah.

The tension between the governments of France and Mali stems from three intertwined factors. First, anti-French sentiment in Mali was growing before the country’s current military rulers took power in August 2020, and the junta and their civilian allies have played to that sentiment as part of their political appeal to the Malian people.

Second, France and most of its allies in West Africa want Mali’s junta to hand power back to civilians as soon as possible; for its part, the junta is dragging its feet. Third, the tensions between France and Mali prompted the junta to turn to Russia and the Kremlin-linked Wagner Group private military contractor in 2021; as a result, the Mali-Russia relationship has become yet another source of tension between Bamako and Paris.

Seeking to compel the junta to leave, France and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have punished Mali diplomatically and imposed a sweeping sanctions regime. It has not worked. The junta has not meaningfully budged, even amid mounting defaults.  Even among ECOWAS heads of state and within other regional organizations, there are signs that support for continued sanctions is slipping.

Meanwhile, ordinary Malians appear to have rallied around the flag — and perhaps retain their disgust with the country’s civilian politicians, including the now-deceased president, Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, who was ousted in 2020 after serving seven years as the head of state.

A recent poll conducted by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation found near-universal support among respondents for the junta — a shocking 95 percent were either “very satisfied” or “fairly satisfied” with military authorities’ performance. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they believe the departure of France’s Operation Barkhane is improving security, and 66 percent said they support Russian deployments and consider the Russian troops to be trainers rather than Wagner Group mercenaries.

It appears that neither the junta’s worst atrocity, a massacre in the central Malian town of Moura in March (reportedly with the assistance of Russian soldiers), nor the junta’s arrests of major politicians in Bamako, have turned ordinary Malians against the military – one of the most trusted institutions in Mali even before the coup. A combination of the military’s pre-existing appeal, the junta’s actual performance, its apparently successful management of perceptions, and France’s and ECOWAS’ perceived political overreach have given the junta an extremely strong domestic political position.

France has a perfect right to defend itself against unproven accusations, such as the charge that French soldiers were the killers who filled the mass grave in northern Mali. Yet France does not have to fight and second-guess every major decision the junta makes. Mali’s apparent withdrawal from the G5 Sahel is a case in point; the G5 Sahel Joint Force has been a shaky project since its creation in 2017, struggling with financing, professionalism, international skepticism (including from the United States) and battlefield performance despite France’s enthusiastic backing for it.

Mali’s withdrawal appears calculated to elicit just the kind of reaction it has evoked — public laments from France and a last-ditch effort by France’s close ally Chad to salvage the project. Letting Mali’s decision pass without objection would have been wiser; France has tried in many ways to break the cycle of provocations, but France has not yet tried indifference.

International relations are about more than emotions, but it seems that Mali’s authorities, and many ordinary citizens in Mali and its neighbors want to feel that their countries’ sovereignty is taken seriously. Mali is an extreme case in terms of the near-rupture with France, but there are recurring sign of rising anti-French sentiment in other Sahelian countries: in November, protesters in Mali’s neighbors Burkina Faso and Niger blocked a French convoy at multiple points along its route; in Chad, protests in February and again in May 2022 featured anti-French slogans and even sporadic acts of violence against symbols of France.

When France maintains an unrelentingly activist foreign policy posture in the region, it risks undercutting not just its own credibility but also the credibility of its favored heads of state, including in Niger and Chad. The seeming French diplomatic victories in such countries --  for example, the April vote by Niger’s National Assembly to authorize expanded deployments of foreign (read: French) troops -- could prove pyrrhic. France was also able to dictate the terms of its military involvement in Mali from 2013 to 2020, but ultimately suffered serious and ongoing political blowback there.

France needs a new and softer diplomatic approach to Mali not just to repair the breach there, but also in anticipation of the similar problems that may confront it elsewhere in West Africa. France can work around Mali in a hostile way, coaxing other West African countries into accepting a French military presence as France and the region brace for the spread of insecurity into the coastal states of West Africa. Or France can work around Mali in a gentler way, leaving the door open to a reconciliation — and perhaps to a redefined relationship with the region as a whole, one where France acknowledges that its former colonies do not want to be treated as juniors and as compliant recipients of security policies crafted in Paris.


Editorial credit: Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock.com|
Analysis | Africa
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.