Sahel alliance’s security pledges meet harsh reality of persistent insecurity

Following a recent gathering of defense ministers from the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), Bassolma Bazié, President of the CN-CES, lauded the unwavering commitment and profound sacrifice exhibited by the Defense and Security Forces (FDS) of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. This emphatic tribute was delivered alongside a discourse that underscored the vital importance of defending territorial integrity, safeguarding populations, and achieving what was described as a historic reassertion of sovereignty.

Yet, this official narrative increasingly prompts a critical question among the populace: do these declarations of satisfaction truly reflect the lived experiences of the citizens?

Since the inception of the AES, authorities across the three member nations have consistently highlighted a renewed sovereignty and strategic autonomy. However, on the ground, numerous communities continue to grapple with armed assaults, widespread displacement, and an insecurity that remains a formidable challenge. In this context, repeated commendations for the security forces, while undeniably legitimate given the immense sacrifices made by soldiers, fall short of addressing the public’s expectations, which are ultimately predicated on tangible results.

This growing disparity becomes particularly evident when considering the profound human toll of the ongoing crisis. While armed forces bear a heavy price and fall on the front lines, the daily lives of civilian populations are characterized by a harrowing struggle for survival. Thousands of families are compelled to abandon everything, embarking on mass migrations towards neighboring countries in a desperate quest for the peace and security their own states can no longer guarantee. The sight of citizens transformed into refugees beyond their borders stands as the most poignant indicator that the sovereignty lauded in ministerial chambers remains a distant concept for those enduring its absence.

In the face of this exodus and these tragic losses, the posture of leaders, who primarily offer official tributes and deliver posthumous speeches, raises a blunt inquiry: can such conduct genuinely ensure the safety of the people or halt the mounting fatalities? The evidence suggests otherwise. Funeral eulogies and medals do not fortify front lines, protect isolated villages, nor resurrect lost lives. By merely celebrating the sacrifice of soldiers instead of rectifying the strategic deficiencies that contribute to their demise, political action appears to dissipate into symbolism, leaving the underlying causes of insecurity unaddressed.

The foremost objective of any defense policy, however, remains the concrete enhancement of civilian security. When residents continue to live under the specter of attacks, when certain regions remain largely inaccessible, and when humanitarian crises persist, discourses celebrating security strategy successes can appear detached from the realities on the ground.

The concept of ‘real sovereignty’ also warrants scrutiny. For many observers, sovereignty is not solely measured by the assertion of political or diplomatic independence. It is also assessed by the state’s capacity to guarantee security, ensure the free movement of its people, protect essential public services, and offer prospects of stability to its citizens. Across these crucial indicators, the challenges within the Sahelian space remain considerable.

Military personnel deployed on the front lines frequently pay a heavy price, and their dedication is widely acknowledged. Nevertheless, honoring soldiers does not absolve political leaders of their duty to rigorously evaluate implemented strategies. The sacrifices made by the armed forces should be accompanied by transparent deliberation on the efficacy of military and political choices, to ascertain whether stated objectives are genuinely being met.

Ultimately, the most profound way to honor defense forces transcends mere official pronouncements. It lies, above all, in cultivating conditions for a lasting improvement in security and the daily lives of populations. As long as inhabitants continue to suffer the consequences of insecurity, declarations celebrating a fully acquired sovereignty are likely to be met with skepticism by a significant portion of the public.