This Sunday marks the fifth anniversary of General Assimi Goïta’s assumption of power in Mali following a coup d’état. Over this period, the Malian populace has faced escalating challenges, including diminished security, restricted freedom of expression, and a curtailed press. My colleague, Dirke Köpp, recently discussed these developments with Ulf Laessing, who directs the Sahel program at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Mali.

Interview with Ulf Laessing on Mali’s Current State

Ulf Laessing highlighted the increasing repression: “It’s no longer simple to speak freely. While candid conversations are still possible in Mali among trusted acquaintances, people have understandably become more cautious. This represents a clear criticism of the government. Furthermore, critical voices have been imprisoned, and many have been compelled to seek exile.”

DW: Have there been any improvements for the population since the military took control of Mali?

Ulf Laessing: “Initially, security saw some minor improvements in certain parts of the country. For instance, the route to Ségou remained open for an extended period, allowing some farmers to return to their lands. However, this is no longer the case. The crisis has persisted and intensified. Considering the enormous demographic growth, climate change, and pervasive insecurity, I am deeply pessimistic that any government can significantly alter the situation.”

DW: The military government came to power in 2020 with the explicit aim of eradicating jihadist groups. This objective appears far from being achieved.

Ulf Laessing: “Indeed, the Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Islamic State effectively control certain areas of the country. I believe no government, whether through another coup or eventually an elected one, will manage to reclaim these territories. I remain quite pessimistic about the prospects of pacifying Mali.”

DW: In late April, coordinated attacks were launched by jihadists and Tuareg rebels. What was the impact of these events?

Ulf Laessing: “That was a genuine shock. It constituted the largest assault since 2012, when Tuareg rebels and jihadists briefly seized control of the north before French forces intervened a year later. This was a direct challenge to the state. While the government has since stabilized its position, they did lose control over some northern territories. It doesn’t seem the rebels are advancing further at present, but it was undoubtedly a blow to the government’s prestige. It was a dramatic attack, and nobody anticipated it – certainly not the Russians, who arrived with the stated goal of enhancing security.”

DW: Speaking of Russian mercenaries, they reportedly withdrew without engaging in significant combat. Mali’s allies, Niger and Burkina Faso, members of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), issued statements but provided no military support. Mali found itself relatively isolated. How do you explain this?

Ulf Laessing: “With the Russians, there has always been more show than substance. They have approximately 1,500 to 2,000 mercenaries in Mali, which is only a third of the French contingent that had already struggled to pacify the entire country. The Russians, through their brutality, have arguably worsened the conflict. Ultimately, their withdrawal from Kidal and two other northern localities without a fight was a humiliation. We also saw little concrete action from Niger and Burkina Faso. They claimed to have offered air support, but in reality, Mali was largely alone that day. This wasn’t surprising, as Niger and Burkina Faso are themselves battling jihadists. I doubt they possess the capacity to assist Mali, even if they wished to.”

DW: Does this suggest that the solidarity often touted by the three AES states is weaker than perceived?

Ulf Laessing: “Politically, they are very aligned and have many shared objectives. However, they lack the political will and, critically, the capacity to implement these plans. The three military leaders are indeed united by ideology, but these are also three of the world’s poorest nations. One must be realistic about the potential benefits of this cooperation. This is not the European Union building roads together or NATO providing mutual defense. These are three extremely impoverished countries fighting for their very survival.”

DW: What potential solutions exist for Mali?

Ulf Laessing: “A positive aspect is that the population does not desire Sharia law or Islamist rule. This could have been a strong catalyst for protests in Mali, despite the inherent dangers and repression. But it is simply not what the people want. I hope that this sentiment can be leveraged, and that at some point, genuine negotiations can begin with the more moderate factions among the jihadists, leading to a constructive dialogue.”

DW: But what could be the basis for such negotiations? Jihadists aim to control the country and impose Sharia. How can one negotiate with such groups?

Ulf Laessing: “I don’t believe JNIM is capable of controlling a city like Bamako or the entire nation. Their objective is to be left undisturbed. They seek to control specific regions and coexist with others. In Bamako, they desire a government that might implement a bit more Sharia and engage in negotiations with them. Unlike in the Middle East, these jihadists are not foreign combatants seeking to kill for pleasure; they are locals. Their grievances often stem from issues like access to water and land, which the jihadists exploit. At some point, I believe discussions will be inevitable. Military action is necessary, but so is dialogue with moderate elements. In Mali, there are already some local pressures advocating for such discussions.”

“Mauritania faced a similar issue. They responded with military force but also through compromises. For instance, alcohol is no longer permitted, and the country is officially an Islamic Republic. It’s true that a full Taliban-style program isn’t necessary. Perhaps a mutual understanding can be reached to satisfy the country’s needs. Once instability is mitigated, the state will naturally have greater capacity to act.”

DW: So, what does the Malian population truly desire?

Ulf Laessing: “The people in Bamako do not want to live under Sharia law. We witnessed this during the late April attacks: there were no widespread protests or strong demands for the government’s resignation, because people understand that if this government falls, the next one is likely to be more Islamist. And that is not what they want. Despite all the criticisms leveled against the military government, it must be acknowledged that many people still support it. They reject the alternatives: they don’t want jihadists, nor do they want a return to the old, corrupt elites who were perceived as tied to France and Europe. Therefore, I believe that if no further major attacks occur, the government will likely remain in power, given the support it commands.”

DW: So, you don’t feel that the impression conveyed by social media is misleading, and that a significant portion of the population, especially the youth, genuinely supports Assimi Goïta’s government?

Ulf Laessing: “The average age in Mali is 15 years. Many no longer attend school. They have no ties to Europe or France. They primarily get their information from social media, where a substantial amount of propaganda circulates, including disinformation disseminated by the Russians to bolster the government. I believe there is still support for the current administration. After the late April attacks, it would have been an opportune moment for protests, as the regime was weakened. This was also true last autumn when fuel deliveries were blocked. Yet, no one protested, as the people clearly do not wish to be governed by JNIM.”

DW: Perhaps they are too preoccupied with mere survival, a situation now exacerbated by the blockade imposed on Bamako?

Ulf Laessing: “Life has certainly become significantly more difficult, even before these recent attacks. People have grown resigned. They’ve lost all illusions about politicians. It’s also important to note that the traditional parties and older politicians have lost much credibility. Many of them have held power before, and nothing improved. This is why many are saying, ‘Let’s give those in power today another chance.'”