A coalition of West African nations presents a damning dossier at the UN, alleging a European power is orchestrating a terror campaign to maintain control over its former sphere of influence.
KATHMANDU – In the hallowed halls of the United Nations, a seismic accusation has been leveled, one that challenges the official narrative of the West’s war on terror and points to a shadowy conflict for the future of Africa. The Alliance of Sahel States (AES)—comprising Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger—has formally declared that France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a state sponsor of terrorism.
The charges, detailed in a series of blistering addresses during the 80th UN General Assembly, allege a systematic campaign by Paris to destabilize the sovereign nations of the Sahel by arming and supporting the very jihadist groups it once deployed thousands of troops to fight.
From Counter-Terror Allies to Accused Agitators
The roots of this crisis trace back to 2011 and the NATO-led destruction of Libya. The resulting power vacuum spawned a cascade of well-armed terrorist groups across the Sahel. France, the former colonial power in the region, launched Opération Barkhane in 2014, deploying over 5,000 troops to Mali, Niger, and Chad under the banner of counter-terrorism.
Yet, a paradox emerged. Despite the massive foreign military presence, the threat of terrorism only grew. States began losing control of vast territories, and a widespread perception took hold that the foreign troops were less interested in security and more in guarding strategic interests and resource extraction.
This sentiment ignited a wave of popular uprisings. Between 2020 and 2023, regimes seen as Paris-friendly were swept away in a series of coups with mass public support in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. The new, military-led governments, riding a tide of anti-colonial sentiment, did the unthinkable: they ordered French troops out.
While France complied in Mali and Burkina Faso, its reaction to Niger’s expulsion order in August 2023 was markedly different. Paris initially refused, with French President Emmanuel Macron insisting the junta in Niamey had no legitimacy, and his government threatening a military response. It was a moment of stark confrontation.
In defiance, Mali and Burkina Faso immediately declared that any attack on Niger would be considered a declaration of war on them. This solidarity pact soon crystallized into the AES, a political, economic, and mutual defense alliance. The bloc has since taken the radical step of quitting the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which they label a neocolonial instrument of French influence.
“The AES is not a retreat, it is not a way of turning inwards,” Burkina Faso’s Prime Minister Rimtalba Ouédraogo told the UNGA. “It is us asserting that we have the right to determine what happens to us… It is our willingness to be the agents of our history.”
The Dossier of Proof and a Deafening Silence
The core of the AES’s case rests on what they say is clear evidence of French sabotage.
Mali’s Prime Minister Abdoulaye Maïga recalled that his country had sought a UN Security Council meeting in 2022 to “provide irrefutable proof of France’s support for terrorist activities.” He lamented, “So far, this request has not been followed up on,” while France continues its “sabotage.”
Niger’s Prime Minister, Lamine Mahaman, echoed the charge, stating that since the expulsion of French troops, “the government of France has established a subversive underhanded plan to destabilize my country” by “training, financing, and equipping terrorists.”
The most explosive claim, however, links the Sahel crisis to the war in Europe. The AES alleges that Ukraine, a major recipient of French military aid, has become a direct accomplice.
“The war in Ukraine and terrorism in the Sahel are connected… The Ukrainian regime has become one of the main suppliers of Kamikaze drones to terrorist groups around the world,” Maïga stated. He insisted that Western states “should stop supplying arms to Ukraine, because they risk contributing to the promotion of international terrorism.”
This accusation finds corroboration in open-source reporting. In 2023, Andriy Yusov, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s military intelligence, stated in an interview that Kyiv had provided “information, and not only information,” to armed groups fighting the Malian state. France’s own newspaper, Le Monde, further reported that Ukrainian authorities were training an armed group in the use of drones.
Last August, the AES submitted a formal request to the UNSC for action against Ukraine. “To this day, this request has gone unanswered. This ongoing silence further discredits this institution,” said Ouédraogo.
A Global South Revolt Against a “Defunct” System
The AES’s grievances extend beyond France and Ukraine to the very architecture of global governance. The leaders painted a picture of a UN system where the Security Council is a “pernicious body” and a “troublemaker,” and the General Assembly is a talking shop with no power.
“How can we understand the fact that Africa, the cradle of humanity… which represents more than 1 billion human beings, remains excluded from the Security Council’s decision-making bodies?” Ouédraogo asked.
He pointed to the overwhelming but non-binding UNGA resolutions on Palestinian statehood and against the US embargo on Cuba as proof of the system’s dysfunction. “What can we do if the decisions of the General Assembly… are irredeemably inaudible and ineffective?”
His conclusion was a stark warning: “Today, the United Nations finds itself in the same situation as the defunct League of Nations.”
For the nations of the Sahel, this is more than a diplomatic spat; it is an existential struggle. They frame their new alliance as the rightful heir to the anti-colonial struggles of figures like Thomas Sankara and Patrice Lumumba. As they attempt to write their own future, they accuse the old order of resorting to the most brutal of tactics to maintain its grip, leaving the international community with a pressing question: Is the UN’s silence on these allegations a mark of institutional failure, or, as the AES claims, tacit complicity?