Following a recent gathering of defense ministers from the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), Bassolma Bazié, president of the CN-CES, extended profound commendations for the dedication and sacrifices made by the Defense and Security Forces of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. This emphatic tribute was delivered alongside a speech emphasizing the imperative to defend territorial integrity, safeguard populations, and achieve a sovereignty heralded as historic.
Yet, this formal discourse immediately prompts a critical inquiry increasingly voiced by the public: do these declarations of satisfaction truly align with the grim realities experienced by ordinary citizens?
Since the AES’s inception, authorities across the three nations have consistently highlighted their reasserted sovereignty and strategic autonomy. Nevertheless, on the ground, numerous communities continue to grapple with armed assaults, mass displacement, and an enduring insecurity that remains a formidable obstacle. In this challenging environment, repeated accolades for the security forces, however warranted by the profound sacrifices of soldiers, fall short of addressing the public’s expectations, who ultimately judge by tangible outcomes.
This growing divergence becomes even more stark when one considers the human toll of this protracted crisis. While the armed forces bear an immense burden and perish on the front lines, the daily lives of civilians are consumed by a harrowing struggle for survival. Thousands of families are compelled to abandon everything, fleeing en masse towards neighboring countries in a desperate search for the peace and safety their own states can no longer guarantee. The sight of citizens transformed into refugees beyond their own borders serves as the most palpable evidence that the sovereignty celebrated in ministerial chambers remains a distant, abstract concept for those living its harsh consequences.
In the face of such exodus and tragic losses, the posture of leaders, who primarily offer official tributes and deliver posthumous speeches, raises a blunt question: is such conduct capable of securing the populace or halting the escalating death toll? The evidence suggests otherwise. Funeral eulogies and medals do not fortify front lines, protect isolated villages, or restore lost lives. By merely commemorating the sacrifice of soldiers instead of rectifying the strategic shortcomings that lead to their demise, political action risks dissolving into symbolism, leaving the underlying drivers of insecurity unaddressed.
The foremost objective of any defense policy, however, must be to tangibly enhance the security of the populace. When civilians continue to live under the constant threat of attacks, when certain regions remain largely inaccessible, and when humanitarian crises persist, pronouncements celebrating the successes of security strategies can appear profoundly disconnected from the realities on the ground.
The concept of “real sovereignty” also warrants deeper examination. For many observers, sovereignty is not solely measured by the assertion of political or diplomatic independence. It is equally assessed by the state’s capacity to ensure security, guarantee the free movement of its people, protect essential public services, and offer prospects of stability to its citizens. Across these vital indicators, the challenges confronting the Sahelian region remain substantial.
Military personnel deployed to the front often pay a heavy price, and their commitment is widely acknowledged. However, honoring soldiers does not absolve political leaders of their duty to rigorously evaluate the strategies being implemented. The sacrifices made by the armed forces should be accompanied by transparent reflection on the efficacy of military and political choices, to determine whether stated objectives are genuinely being met.
Ultimately, the most profound way to honor defense forces extends beyond official pronouncements. It lies, above all, in cultivating conditions for a lasting improvement in the security and daily lives of the population. As long as inhabitants continue to endure the consequences of insecurity, declarations celebrating a fully acquired sovereignty are likely to be met with considerable skepticism from a segment of the public.
