GloPoPolis

Sample E Presentation Script 1

For my first case study I have decided to focus on the Mali conflict and the Danish military intervention,
as well as the UN military intervention connection. So my research question is: to what extent do national
interests of Denmark affect the country’s involvement in Mali?

In terms of the global political challenge, we see that national interests often effect the international
community's ability to promote local security. So this is individual national interests of different countries.

In terms of the situation in Mali it started in 2012, when Tuareg nationalists in Northern Mali, which is the
country next to Mauritania, started a rebellion as well as with other extremist Islamic groups in Northern
Mali and one or two established their own states. So they started moving south, trying to take the capital
of Mali. The conflict can be actually attributed to the Arab Spring of 2011 which occurred in Northern
Africa. Here we see the general countries that have been affected, through different civil wars, different
protests and we see that Mali is right next to two major ones, so in that sense a lot of people say that the
Arab spring actually bled over borders and therefore affected Mali.

Islamic extremism is also an important factor in considering the conflict in Mali. Al Qaeda for example,
affiliates itself with the Ansar Dine which is one of the extremist Islamic groups that are part of the whole
Tuareg rebellion. Gaddafi’s fall also caused the Al Qaeda to be able to have a gun trade along the Sahel
region in Northern Africa which also prompted or promoted the rise of rebels in Northern Mali.

In terms of international intervention, in October 2016, Denmark responded to the UN call to arms,
donating 30 special troops, 30 staff officers, as well as other support, and also talks of extending that aid.
The nature of the unrest is a threat to global security therefore the stakeholders are the UN, and
Denmark, as well as the P5 in general. When regarding Denmark’s involvement or intervention, we can
regard it through two different perspectives.

Firstly from the international communities position, this is when we regard the involvement from a
liberalist perspective. So Mali can be viewed as a ‘global threat’ in this case. When we talk about
regionalism, we talk about regional trends. So here we say, we see that this general regional trend of
insecurity in Northern Africa, as well as extremism, which again moves over borders to Mali.

Mali is actually one of the severest conflicts in terms of peacekeeping for the UN. So in this sense
promoting security in Mali would actual provide regional security, as well as security for the whole world.
So in that sense, Mali can almost be regarded as a proxy conflict.

In terms of international interests, in this case we see that the UN is an important stakeholder as they
would like to promote global security and the security council is therefore also an important stakeholder
and actually passed a resolution in 2164 which initiated the start of MINUSMA which is the UN
peacekeeping mission in Mali. Their initial goal was actually to safeguard citizens, so it was actually to
promote peace. This means that they were supposed to use non-violent methods, such as peaceful
discussions with rebels. However this started in 2013, but in 2015 and 2014, the conflict actually
escalated. The current toll is 53 from the start of the peacekeeping mission which is the highest of all
peacekeeping missions for the UN. So we see that this is because of the rise of jihadism and the spread
of general unrest in Mali. Aas a result this changed the MINUSMA’s mission to “eradicate violent
insurgents” according to Jeff Lorenti (spelling?) who is a UN specialist. So we see here that primarily the
UN troops in Mali are peacekeeping troop so again non-violent methods. However, given the situation,
we could argue that hard power is needed. Therefore there might be also a need for foreign troops as
 GloPoPolis
peacekeeping troops are not equipped to deal with the situation. So given the idea that the international
community acts together, and Denmark is a part of the international community, this justifies their military
involvement in Mali.
In terms of human rights, this is a foundation of the international community and has been a core
purpose of the UN since its foundation. So the violations of human rights in Mali are not always
documented but they are generally discussed. So in that sense the military involvement of the UN in Mali
is due to the fact that they are duty bound to uphold and protect human rights in order to promote global
peace.

This is also connected to the idea of legitimacy as the UN would be defending their own values.
Denmark as a valid international actor, and a part of the international community of the UN, would
therefore also argue for the military involvement as a defending human rights and defending the
international community’s values.

Denmark in the past has been very militarily active in terms of international affairs that they are in global
security. We see this for example in Afghanistan where proportionate to their population, the action had a
higher death toll on soldiers than the US and the UK. However this trend of military activism, as well as
the idea of promoting global security, can also be seen from a realist perspective. In this case we see
that Danish legitimacy can be argued form a national perspective Denmark can be seen as an actor on
the global level. So military activity and the use of hard power which promotes their influence.
Additionally we see that military budget cuts have actually influenced Denmark’s military ability. As a
result this undermines their legitimacy and power. So military activism in Mali would promote legitimacy
on a global scale.

We actually see Denmark in NATO, that their position has been threatened due to lack of capabilities,
due to budget cuts, according to former chairman for NATO military community. So Denmark’s legitimacy
is also importance in terms of self-interest, in order to promote future security. In that sense, in order to
promote the well-being of their citizens and this is where we see the idea of bandwagoning. This is when
smaller nations support larger nations in order to promote future security in case they need it. So here
we see that France has colonial interests in Mali, as well as US in order to expel jihadism, so Denmark
by supporting these major countries would actually be securing their future security from the great
sphere of Russia who they have a lot of tension with as of late.

We can also regard the situation from the national interests perspective on a refugee crisis level. So here
we see in general that conflicts in north Africa for example, Libya, Sudan, they have actually prompted a
refugee crisis and the Malian crisis could also as well prompt a similar crisis. And according to the 1954
convention of refugees, we see that nations actually are supposed to give financial support, the same
financial support they give to the citizens, as the refugees in their country. Denmark is a socialist country
and gives a lot of financial support to its citizens, therefore a refugee crisis would adversely affect them.

In conclusion we see that national interests, in terms of legitimacy, self-interests to promote security, so
bandwagoning and the refugee crisis would prompt Denmark to militarily intervene in Mali. However,
from the liberalist it can also be argued that the initial intervention, can also be argued in terms of the
international community’s intervention. So from the liberalist perspective, and this is where regional
trends might focus effect global security, addition there is the responsibility to protect and the
responsibility to defend community rights. In terms of the challenge faced elsewhere, we see that the
international community elsewhere relies on the international participation of everyone to donate troops
as well as other types of support and national interests the effect of countries of involvement in several
UN missions. And from a realist perspective we see that the bandwagoning, so when smaller nations
 GloPoPolis
supporting larger nations, is a foundation of the international community’s intervention in other countries
and therefore national interests play a huge role in the international communities involvement.

Introduction For my first case study I have decided to focus on the Mali conflict and the Danish
military intervention, as well as the UN military intervention connection. So my
research question is: to what extent do national interests of Denmark affect the
country’s involvement in Mali?

In terms of the global political challenge, we see that national interests often effect the
international community's ability to promote local security. So this is individual
national interests of different countries.

Background - In terms of the situation in Mali it started in 2012, when Tuareg nationalists in
Northern Mali, which is the country next to Mauritania, started a rebellion as well as
Student gives with other extremist Islamic groups in Northern Mali and one or two established their
major features own states. So they started moving south, trying to take the capital of Mali. The
of the conflict conflict can be actually attributed to the Arab Spring of 2011 which occurred in
and the issues Northern Africa. Here we see the general countries that have been affected, through
involved- different civil wars, different protests and we see that Mali is right next to two major
Islamic ones, so in that sense a lot of people say that the Arab spring actually bled over
extremism, borders and therefore affected Mali.
terrorism. Islamic extremism is also an important factor in considering the conflict in Mali. Al
Qaeda for example, affiliates itself with the Ansar Dine which is one of the extremist
Islamic groups that are part of the whole Tuareg rebellion. Gaddafi’s fall also caused
the Al Qaeda to be able to have a gun trade along the Sahel region in Northern Africa
which also prompted or promoted the rise of rebels in Northern Mali.
In terms of international intervention, in October 2016, Denmark responded to the UN
call to arms, donating 30 special troops, 30 staff officers, as well as other support,
and also talks of extending that aid. The nature of the unrest is a threat to global
security therefore the stakeholders are the UN, and Denmark, as well as the P5 in
general.

Clear
signposting
When regarding Denmark’s involvement or intervention, we can regard it through two
different perspectives.

1st point: Firstly from the international communities position, this is when we regard the
involvement from a liberalist perspective. So Mali can be viewed as a ‘global threat’ in
From a liberal this case. When we talk about regionalism, we talk about regional trends. So here
perspective we say, we see that this general regional trend of insecurity in Northern Africa, as well
Mali is a proxy as extremism, which again moves over borders to Mali.
conflict to
generate Mali is actually one of the severest conflicts in terms of peacekeeping for the UN. So
regional in this sense promoting security in Mali would actual provide regional security, as well
 GloPoPolis
stability (I as security for the whole world. So in that sense, Mali can almost be regarded as a
don’t agree proxy conflict.
with her
point!)

2nd point: In terms of international interests, in this case we see that the UN is an important
stakeholder as they would like to promote global security and the security council is
UN troops are therefore also an important stakeholder and actually passed a resolution in 2164
nonviolent and which initiated the start of MINUSMA which is the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali.
therefore Their initial goal was actually to safeguard citizens, so it was actually to promote
there is a peace. This means that they were supposed to use non-violent methods, such as
need for hard peaceful discussions with rebels. However this started in 2013, but in 2015 and 2014,
power to the conflict actually escalated. The current toll is 53 from the start of the
compliment peacekeeping mission which is the highest of all peacekeeping missions for the UN.
UN efforts so So we see that this is because of the rise of jihadism and the spread of general
Denmark is unrest in Mali. As a result this changed the MINUSMA’s mission to “eradicate violent
justified in its insurgents” according to Jeff Lorenti (spelling?) who is a UN specialist. So we see
involvement. here that primarily the UN troops in Mali are peacekeeping troop so again non-violent
(Again I methods. However, given the situation, we could argue that hard power is needed.
disagree with Therefore there might be also a need for foreign troops as peacekeeping troops are
her logic). not equipped to deal with the situation. So given the idea that the international
community acts together, and Denmark is a part of the international community, this
justifies their military involvement in Mali.

3rd point: In terms of human rights, this is a foundation of the international community and has
human rights been a core purpose of the UN since its foundation. So the violations of human rights
in Mali are not always documented but they are generally discussed. So in that sense
the military involvement of the UN in Mali is due to the fact that they are duty bound to
uphold and protect human rights in order to promote global peace.

Key concept This is also connected to the idea of legitimacy as the UN would be defending their
link- own values. Denmark as a valid international actor, and a part of the international
legitimacy community of the UN, would therefore also argue for the military involvement as a
defending human rights and defending the international community’s values.

Denmark in the past has been very militarily active in terms of international affairs that
they are in global security. We see this for example in Afghanistan where
proportionate to their population, the action had a higher death toll on soldiers than
the US and the UK. However this trend of military activism, as well as the idea of
promoting global security, can also be seen from a realist perspective. In this case we
see that Danish legitimacy can be argued form a national perspective Denmark can
be seen as an actor on the global level. So military activity and the use of hard power
which promotes their influence. Additionally we see that military budget cuts have
actually influenced Denmark’s military ability. As a result this undermines their
legitimacy and power. So military activism in Mali would promote legitimacy on a
global scale.
 GloPoPolis
We actually see Denmark in NATO, that their position has been threatened due to
lack of capabilities, due to budget cuts, according to former chairman for NATO
military community. So Denmark’s legitimacy is also importance in terms of
self-interest, in order to promote future security. In that sense, in order to promote the
well-being of their citizens and this is where we see the idea of bandwagoning. This is
when smaller nations support larger nations in order to promote future security in
case they need it. So here we see that France has colonial interests in Mali, as well
as US in order to expel jihadism, so Denmark by supporting these major countries
would actually be securing their future security from the great sphere of Russia who
they have a lot of tension with as of late.

Perspective of
national We can also regard the situation from the national interests perspective on a refugee
interests crisis level. So here we see in general that conflicts in North Africa for example,
Libya, Sudan, they have actually prompted a refugee crisis and the Malian crisis
could also as well prompt a similar crisis. And according to the 1954 convention of
refugees, we see that nations actually are supposed to give financial support, the
same financial support they give to the citizens, as the refugees in their country.
Denmark is a socialist country and gives a lot of financial support to its citizens,
therefore a refugee crisis would adversely affect them.

Conclusion In conclusion we see that national interests, in terms of legitimacy, self-interests to

promote security, so bandwagoning and the refugee crisis would prompt Denmark to
militarily intervene in Mali. However, from the liberalist it can also be argued that the
initial intervention, can also be argued in terms of the international community’s
intervention. So from the liberalist perspective, and this is where regional trends might
focus effect global security, addition there is the responsibility to protect and the
responsibility to defend community rights. In terms of the challenge faced elsewhere,
we see that the international community elsewhere relies on the international
participation of everyone to donate troops as well as other types of support and
national interests the effect of countries of involvement in several UN missions. And
from a realist perspective we see that the bandwagoning, so when smaller nations
supporting larger nations, is a foundation of the international community’s intervention
in other countries and therefore national interests play a huge role in the international
communities involvement.