PARIS

- Nine years after the start of the military operation "Serval" in Mali (2013), French President Emmanuel Macron announced, on Thursday, the withdrawal of French forces "in an orderly manner" in the coming months, and the announcement came ahead of the opening of the summit of the European and African Unions in Brussels.

For its part, the ruling military council in the Malian capital (Bamako) called on France, on Friday, to withdraw its soldiers from his country without delay, the day after Paris and its partners announced the withdrawal.

In a statement read on national television, Malian government spokesman Colonel Abdullah Maaika described the announcement of the end of the French "Barkhane" operation (which replaced Operation Serval in 2014), as a "flagrant violation" of the agreements between the two countries, and said that the results of the French forces in Mali "was not satisfactory".

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera Net, the spokesperson for the French Armed Forces Ministry, Evre Grandjohn, revealed his new government's strategy in the Sahel region (includes 5 countries: Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Chad), and the fate of European forces in it after the withdrawal.

Grandjohn explained that Mali is living in complete isolation after the military council took a "reckless path" that put the country on the margins of the international community, and stressed that the withdrawal would be orderly and would not resemble what happened at Kabul Airport during the departure of the US army from Afghanistan.


  • What is France's new strategy to combat what it calls terrorism in the Sahel and Sahara region after declaring its withdrawal from Mali?

At the outset, it must be clarified that the reason we left Mali relates to the junta, which cut off political and military ties with the international community, rejected the democratic transition, and expelled the Special Representative of the Economic Community of West African States.

On the military level, a no-fly zone was imposed.

With his recall of the thousand Russian mercenaries "Wagner", Mali will be far from achieving sovereignty, whether in terms of security, securing energy supplies, and preserving mineral resources.

For our part, we see that the presence of Wagner is not in line with our strategy and values, which is why President Macron, in consultation with international partners, the African Union, the European Commission and Canadians, has decided to move forward with the withdrawal of Barkhane Force from Mali within 4 to 6 months.

We will continue the fight against terrorism in the Sahel, but in a different and lighter way, we want to provide support and assistance to the leadership and training in the fight against terrorism only if necessary, and we will have between 2,500 and 3,000 soldiers in the Sahel, knowing that today we have 4,600 soldiers, half of them in Mali alone.

The challenge in the coming weeks and months is to coordinate with our African and European partners to determine what the new security structure will look like, as well as to start talks with the countries of the region to discuss their needs, understand them and support them as they should, especially as we see an increasing threat in the south, towards the Gulf of Guinea, Benin, Cote d'Ivoire and Senegal.

Macron referred to the stationing of European soldiers in Niger to continue the fight against terrorist groups.

Demonstrations against the French presence in Mali (Reuters)

  • What is the fate of the European "Takuba" force and the international "MINUSMA" forces?

The withdrawal of MINUSMA is not expected at the present time, and its presence will certainly be coordinated by the Malian armed forces.

It should be noted that today there are 2,500 French soldiers in Mali, the European Union Training Mission (IUTM), the "Takuba" force (750 soldiers), and the "MINUSMA" force, which includes 15,000 personnel.

  • What is the reason for choosing Niger as a new fulcrum?

Niger is located on the border with Mali, and it is the only one that attended the virtual "N'Djamena" summit of the Sahel countries (July 2021) from Paris, and clearly defined the three borders (between Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso) as an area that requires a special effort to confront the "Islamic State" organization in The Sahara Desert.

Niger has an excellent political partnership, which explains the spread of European soldiers on its soil. France has an air base in the capital, Niamey, that contains combat aircraft and drones.

  • How will Mali compensate for the withdrawal of French forces?

    Will this constitute a final break with this state and its army?

This question should be asked to the Malian authorities, because they made the deliberate decision and took a reckless approach that put them on the sidelines of the international community, which made us contact the Nigerien government to put in place a security system aimed at protecting Malians and fighting terrorist groups.

Mali did not make full use of the helping hand offered by France, and today we are forced to take into account the political and military estrangement between the international community and Mali.

It is worth noting that the French army has trained many Malian soldiers since 2013, when their number did not exceed 8,000, but today there are 40,000 Malian soldiers capable of resisting and fighting.

  • Is there a French military equipment in Mali today?

Given the current circumstances, there is no doubt about the use of French equipment by the Malian armed forces, but we are studying the mechanisms and conditions under which the three remaining French camps in Mali will be dismantled or ceded, namely: Gao, Menaka and Gossi.


  • After the summit that brought together Emmanuel Macron with the presidents of Ghana and Senegal and the President of the European Council Charles Michel, will Mali enter into isolation internationally and with neighboring countries in particular?

Mali is already completely isolated, and has been under embargo since West African countries imposed economic and financial sanctions on Bamako and expelled Danish soldiers.

It is clear that the ruling military council is pursuing a strategy to retain power at all costs, and does not have a strategy to combat terrorism.

As a result, the risk of international isolation for Mali is very high.

  • Former President François Hollande defended his decision to send French troops to Mali in 2013, but indicated that he would have decided an "early withdrawal" once the coup had occurred. Why did France wait two years to make the decision to withdraw?

After the first coup in 2020, we tried to establish a dialogue that guarantees a democratic transition, but the problem is that the second coup happened a few months later, which made dialogue with the Military Council impossible.

The European forces were our ally in Mali, so the decision to withdraw could not be taken only from the French side.

A demonstration in the capital, Bamako, called by a movement against the French presence in Mali (Reuters)

  • Many say that the withdrawal from Mali was expected due to the lack of clarity in the French and European strategy in recent years. Did France and its allies fail militarily and politically in Mali?

We refuse to use the word "failure".

First: We must remember how jihadist movements were intrusive in Bamako and threatening to overthrow it in 2013, and if France had not intervened at the time and used its maneuvers and harassment against terrorist groups, Mali today would have become an “Islamic caliphate.”

Second, we must look at the leaders who have been removed, such as the leader of the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi.

These operations have contributed to severing the means of communication between the Sahel region and the "Islamic State Organization" and "Al-Qaeda".

Third: We see that the training of Malian soldiers is one of the most important successes of the Barkhane force, because it helped restore public services, schools, hospitals, judges, and even water points.

Finally, France has always emphasized that the solution must be political, not just military.

Today we leave Mali because the will of the Malian authorities for a democratic transition and the development of the country is "unclear".


  • Where is the difference between the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and the withdrawal of French forces from Mali?

There is a clear difference between the two;

France did not intervene in the Sahel region to topple the existing regime in the country, but rather to fight terrorist groups. As for the US forces, they intervened in Afghanistan to bring down the Taliban movement.

We also do not leave Mali because of pressure from terrorist groups, and the decision to withdraw was made in coordination with our partners, unlike what happened in Afghanistan, where American soldiers were deported under the pressure of the Taliban’s return to power, which means that both cases are completely different, at the geo-strategic level.

Moreover, there are no historical and linguistic ties between Americans and Afghans compared to the relationship between France and the Sahel countries, as well as the communities of these countries settled in France.

We cannot forget the unfortunate images of planes taking off from Kabul airport, which will not happen in Bamako because we will be making an orderly withdrawal in the next four or six months.