Can a military-led counterterrorism strategy succeed while ignoring humanitarian law?
Mali’s transition government set out with a clear mission: reclaim the nation’s sovereignty and restore security. Yet instead of stability, the country faces a growing humanitarian crisis. Reports indicate that Malian military forces and their Russian-affiliated allies, operating under the Africa Corps banner, are systematically violating international humanitarian law in their pursuit of armed groups. While officials in Bamako paint the campaign as a fight for peace, the reality on the ground tells a far darker story—one marked by civilian massacres, systemic abuse, and the erosion of the very rules meant to protect the most vulnerable.
Written commitments, broken on the battlefield
Mali is not a newcomer to international law. The nation ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1965 and the Additional Protocols in 1989, pledging to uphold the distinction between civilians and combatants, prohibit torture, and ensure humane treatment for detainees. Military doctrine, too, has long included training on the laws of war. But these principles are increasingly absent from frontline operations.
What began as isolated incidents of misconduct has evolved into a coordinated pattern. Civilians—particularly from Fulani communities—are no longer accidental victims; they are primary targets caught between the brutality of jihadist factions and the state’s retaliatory violence. Villages are razed, homes plundered, and individuals subjected to torture through methods such as waterboarding and electric shocks. These actions are not random. They reflect a deliberate shift in strategy: where once the state aimed to isolate extremists from their support base, today it appears to target entire populations perceived as sympathetic.
Disappearance of oversight: the aftermath of international withdrawal
The closure of the United Nations’ MINUSMA mission in late 2023 was hailed as a victory for national sovereignty. But it also marked the silencing of external scrutiny. With no independent monitors on the ground, the capacity to document abuses has evaporated—at least officially. Human rights organizations continue their remote investigations, yet their findings meet with official denial and a complete lack of investigative cooperation.
Statistics from 2024 paint a stark picture: civilian casualties, forced displacements, and extrajudicial killings have skyrocketed compared to pre-withdrawal levels. Without oversight, the threshold for acceptable conduct has effectively been removed. The result? A surge in war crimes that go unchallenged.
Justice on hold: the collapse of accountability
Legal avenues to challenge these abuses are rapidly closing. Mali’s decision to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2023 removed a critical layer of accountability. Meanwhile, domestic courts remain under political control, rendering any domestic prosecution impossible. Regional actors have also failed to intervene meaningfully. The African Union releases cautious statements but avoids concrete action, while the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) focuses primarily on constitutional stability rather than human rights or battlefield conduct.
The absence of consequences has emboldened security forces. Impunity is no longer a byproduct of conflict—it is policy. Commanders know that no one will be held responsible for orders carried out in the name of national security. That knowledge shifts behavior from restraint to escalation.
Losing the war before the battle is over
The military’s approach rests on a fundamental miscalculation. By prioritizing fear over legitimacy, Bamako is fueling the very grievances that drive recruitment into armed groups. Every burned village, every tortured detainee, every civilian corpse adds to the narrative of state oppression. These are not isolated atrocities—they form a pattern of collective punishment that radicalizes communities and pushes them toward extremist factions.
There is a paradox at the heart of Mali’s counterterrorism campaign: the harder the military fights, the more recruits the insurgency gains. The state that claims to defend its people is, in reality, destroying the trust necessary to govern. Legitimacy is not won through brute force. It is earned through justice, protection, and respect for human dignity. Today, Mali risks forfeiting both its moral and political authority—and with it, any chance of sustainable peace.
Where do Mali’s allies and institutions stand?
The international community once served as a counterbalance to state excesses. Today, that role has collapsed. The withdrawal of MINUSMA left a vacuum no regional body has filled. Sanctions have been proposed but rarely enforced. Diplomatic statements are issued, but no binding measures are taken to halt the abuses. The result is a dangerous normalization of violence under the banner of security.
Without external pressure, the junta feels no obligation to change course. Human rights defenders face detention. Journalists are silenced. And civilians continue to pay the price—caught between terrorists and a state that has abandoned its constitutional duty to protect.