War in Mali - when human rights become a license to kill

On January 16th 2013, the French army landed in Mali "determined to end the Islamist domination" in northern Mali (and incidentally to secure its uranium supply…). This military intrusion fits into the logic of the "France-Afrique": the French are maintaining since more than 50 years a neocolonialist relationship allowing them to control the African states through their economy and their military institutions (the "colonial pact" which was supposed to be ephemeral, never stopped).

This a neocolonialist relationship is considered as the longest scandal of the French Republic. Introduced by de Gaulle in 1960, and accepted for 5 decades by the French people, it remains still today a dirty public fund diversion which uses official development assistance funds, to support dictatorships, coups, assassinations and to hide and organize diversion funds and illegal funding of French political parties.

This war intervention in Mali (that's how the French called it) and the popularity of this action among the French are a good example of this "France Afrique”. But this "intervention" has a cost not only financial but also human and ethical:

Financial Cost: € 2.7 million per day, 200 million in April 2013.

Human Cost: thousands of military and civilian victims, some ethnic massacres (lynching, rapes, thefts, deportations) against the Tuareg, and more generally against Muslims (in only 3 months ...).

Ethical costs: discredit on the concept of "human rights" and "democracy" which are becoming the fashionable pretext of western nations to declare a war, and ensure their dominance over other nations. The legitimization of an unelected and corrupt government installed by force after a coup d'état in 2012 supported by the French government. All of these with the blessings of the UN: on June 5th, Hollande (the current president) received for his "brave intervention in Mali" the UNESCO Peace Prize ... The glorious military feat has been loudly applauded by the French cultural institutions, protector of the "grandeur de la France".

Mitterrand (previous president) said in 1957 that "without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century." His successor Chirac declared in 2008 that "without Africa, France would slip into the ranks of a third-rate country." And since then, attitudes did not evolve. This status obsession, this need to show off, to flex our muscles and plumage, to beg for recognition, and this conception of what makes "the greatness of a country," is still topical. Enslaving others to increase one's own status is still acceptable.

And what if the "degree of civilization" was not related to the economical, technological or even military arsenal of a nation but was related to its ability to meet its needs in a respectful manner?

And what if the best way to measure the development of a nation —or a person— was to measure the development of its moral values, beginning with its ability to care for others?