Should the French intervention in Mali be supported? Paul Fauvet says yes (M Star January 22).
As he says, they were invited. But by whom? The Malian government and army are hardly united.
And the urban crowds may welcome French troops, but what about the Tuareg? The problem is not just terrorism - there is a situation of civil war arising from the north's long marginalisation.
Militarist actions cannot solve these problems.
A UN resolution has been agreed between the government, regional powers and the wider international community which calls for the establishment of an African force under African (Ecowas) leadership as part of a comprehensive package to address Mali's longer-term needs for political stability and economic development.
But this has been ignored by France as it puts itself in the driving seat in a move that is hardly disinterested. Like the US and Britain in Iraq, and Nato in Libya, it has bypassed the UN and the precedent of "humanitarian" intervention is now in great danger of becoming accepted as the rule.
Western powers are using terrorism as an excuse to militarise the region. Seeing themselves as losers in economic competition with the emerging powers over Africa's resources, they attempt to turn things in their favour.
But instead of trying to resist the shifting world balance of power, Western countries should be working with the multipolar trend, co-operating with both emerging and resource-rich economies to create new arrangements for resource development and sharing which are mutually beneficial for the whole of the international community.
We should support political dialogue in Mali and the implementation of the UN resolution, not France's narrow militarism.
We should tell our own leaders to give up their colonial assumption of their right to lead the world. What we need is a fundamental shift in world outlook and foreign policy.