Search This Blog

Tuesday 27 December 2022

War on Christmas, the Agacher strip clash

 

President Sankara in front with beret visits Agacher during conflict in December 1985
 

On Christmas day 1985 the West African nations of Mali and Burkina Faso found themselves in a military conflict. The dispute was called by some African leaders as "the war of the poor" due to the economic conditions within both countries and became known commonly as the Agacher strip War. The Agacher strip was a territory bordering both nations, in the furthest north of Burkina Faso and as part of Mali's southern border. The clashes lasted five days before the International Court of Justice arbitrated. Casualties are had to accurately but are estimated as high as 300 including civilians and military. 

The situation was essentially powder keg next to an open flame. Agacher was a porous border, people living their often crossed what was suppsoed to be the recognised border. Cattle farmers would trespass to graze their cattle on the best lands in the area. And the territory was beleived to be rich in natural resources. Both nations had been pursuing their claims to the territory for many  years with sporadic shooting in 1974. But relations between Mali and Burkina Faso were especially poor by 1985. Burkina Faso's leader Thomas Sankara had publicly urged on revolution in Mali during a period of unrest 

“The other peoples who are on our borders also need a revolution […] I want to talk about Mali. […] The revolution of the people of Burkina Faso is available to the people of Mali who need it. Because he alone will allow him to fight against hunger, thirst, ignorance; and to fight above all against the forces of neocolonial and imperialist domination”.

Speech from September 1985, machine translated from French

Meanwhile Sankara suspected Mali's leader Moussa Traore of working with Burkinabe exiles and the Ivory Coast against him. Further aggravating the situation was the Burkina Faso census being conducted at the time which included the communities in Agacher and border settlements claimed by Mali. Burkina Faso also deployed soldiers to the area without notification resulting in confrontation with Mali authorities. Burkina Faso announced it would withdraw its soldiers but had not done so by the time the conflict had started.

On the 25th of December Mali launched its offensive, over five days its forces successfully occupied a large part of the strip with the Burkinabe forces lead by Blaise Compaore forced to disperse and resort to ambush and delaying tactics. On December 30th a truce sponsored by African leaders was struck and held. In January 1986 the two countries began desecalting, prisoners were exchanged and eventually a time table for withdrawing forces was agreed. Both governments accused each other, Burkina Faso stated it was the victim of aggression while Mali maintained that its operation was to protect its territorial integrity. By that December the International Court of Justice had decided to split the territory roughly in half with Mali taking the West and Burkina Faso the east. Both nations accepted this proposal and that was the end of hostilities between the two countries.

The reason I'm outlining this short conflict is the connection to Thomas Sankara. Thomas Sankara was Marxist revolutionary and statesmen who came to power through a coup d'etat in the former French colony of Upper Volta in 1983. In 1984 as part of Sankara's reforms the country was renamed to Burkina Faso. Sankara's charisma, interventionist policies and lack of readily available information about him or his time in government (in English anyway) and his tragic end, deposed and killed in 1987 in another coup d'etat by his close colleague and fellow band member Blaise Compaore, created the perfect conditions for a posthoumous cult of personality. Sankara is extremely popular today amongst certain left-wing circles and while its difficult to find information about in English, its almost possible to find even mild criticism.

So, I think the Agacher Strip, both the long running dispute and the conflict it birthed are an excellent demonstration of reality. It is possible that Thomas Sankara was truly as selfless and brilliant as he is presented by his admirers. But he was also the leader of a government and a nation state and an active participant in the international community. This means that ultimately his personal qualities aren't of much importance because both he and the Burkinabe revolution he promoted had to work within a system that constrained and limited them. 

As seen by the dispute over territory in Agacher. Two nations wanted to augment their security and natural wealth fought over a territory both had claimed. While Sankara had encouraged Malians to oust Muossa Traore in speeches and print there was no serious attempt to link the struggle for control of Agacher to a revolution in Mali. And Mali despite gaining the upper hand against the armed forces of Burkina Faso made no attempt to deliver a serious blow to Burkina Faso, its forces remained within the territory that was disputed. And after the International Court of Justice recommended splitting the territory both sides agreed and scaled back their aggressive measures. Both governments came to an agreement they could live with at the cost of a few hundred of their citizens. 

Furthermore, despite Sankara being an open Marxist with close co-operation with Cuba the Cold War dynamics of East vs West played no role in this conflict. Moussa Traore had taken steps to improve relations with France but his regime and especially its military relied heavily on the Soviet Union. The air force that bombed Burkinabe positions and villages flew Mig-21s and its tanks and equipment were also from the Soviet military. There were at least 50 Soviet military advisers present in the country at the time of the conflict offering support as well.

MiG-21 in the service of the Malian air force

Ultimately it didn't matter that Sankara was in power at all. The tensions between the two nations predated him and they were fought by means that trump ideological postures and by diplomacy and force, the tools available to all states and endorsed by the international authorities so long as they occurr in the proper manner.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts