The complete withdrawal of MINUSMA from Mali, formalised at the end of 2023, marks a major turning point for security in the Sahel. This UN mission, deployed since 2013, had the main mandate of stabilising the country, protecting civilians and supporting the implementation of the 2015 Peace Agreement. Its rapid closure, at the request of the Malian transitional authorities, reshuffles the cards on several levels: security, political, humanitarian and regional.
A rapid withdrawal in an already deteriorated context
MINUSMA’s withdrawal came at a time when political and jihadist violence remained high in Mali and the region, as shown by ACLED data and analyses by the International Crisis Group and ISS Africa. Attacks by groups affiliated with al-Qaeda (JNIM) and the Islamic State in the Sahel (IS Sahel), as well as intercommunal violence, were already on the rise in certain areas, particularly in the centre of the country.
The decision to end the mission was taken in 2023 following growing tensions between the Malian government and the UN: restrictions on movement, public criticism of MINUSMA, and Bamako’s strategic repositioning towards other security partners, notably Russia. In a few months, the mission had to organise the withdrawal of more than 13,000 military and police personnel, as well as many civilians, closing bases that were sometimes located in highly contested areas.
A partial security vacuum and local realignments
The first visible impact concerns the security coverage of the territory. MINUSMA, despite its limitations, provided an international presence in many localities in the North and Centre: patrols, observation, logistical and medical support, medical evacuations, escorts for humanitarian convoys.
The mission’s departure had several combined effects:
- Reduced international presence in strategic areas (Kidal, Tessalit, Aguelhok, Menaka, Gao, Mopti, Timbuktu), with the closure of camps that served as bases for surveillance and deterrence.
- Repositioning of the Malian armed forces (FAMa) and their allies, notably Russian, to take over certain sites vacated by the UN, sometimes amid rivalry with the armed groups that signed the 2015 Agreement.
- Opportunities for jihadist armed groups, which are seeking to exploit MINUSMA’s departure to extend their influence, control roads and tighten their grip on rural populations.
This vacuum is not total: the Malian state has taken over several camps and says it is strengthening its deployment. However, its capacity to project forces durably over vast territories, to hold reconquered areas and to protect civilians remains an open question. UN reports published before the mission closed already highlighted the limitations of the national forces in personnel, mobility and logistics, despite some tactical gains.
Consequences for the protection of civilians
MINUSMA had an explicit mandate to protect civilians, even if its action was often judged insufficient by the population and observers. Its air assets, its garrisoned contingents and its early-warning mechanisms nevertheless helped mitigate certain risks in particularly exposed areas.
The withdrawal has several possible implications:
- Reduced capacity for warning and deterrence in remote rural areas, where communities are now more directly exposed to reprisals by armed groups, intercommunal clashes and potential abuses by state or non-state actors.
- Fewer monitoring mechanisms for human rights violations. MINUSMA’s reports were an important source of documentation on abuses committed by all parties to the conflict.
- Ambivalent public perception: some local actors criticised MINUSMA for its inertia, while others fear that its departure will worsen insecurity and violence, particularly in the centre of the country.
The data available since the end of 2023 show contrasting developments from region to region. In some areas, the reinforced presence of the Malian army may have temporarily reduced certain types of attack. In others, the reshaping of forces and competition between armed groups have fuelled an increase in violent incidents, although analyses are still ongoing and the medium-term trend remains uncertain.
Impact on the peace process and the signatory armed groups
MINUSMA played a central role in supporting the Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation resulting from the Algiers process (2015): facilitating dialogue, supporting monitoring mechanisms, assisting with the implementation of certain security provisions (cantonment, DDR – disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration), as well as supporting the interim authorities in the North.
Its departure has several major effects:
- Weakened mediation mechanisms between the state and the signatory movements (former Coordination of Azawad Movements, Platform, etc.), in a context of heightened mistrust.
- Renewed hostilities in some areas of the North, with clashes between Malian forces and signatory armed groups for control of former MINUSMA camps, particularly around Kidal.
- Risk of fragmentation of the politico-military landscape, as some groups may radicalise, move closer to criminal or jihadist networks or, conversely, seek local arrangements with the state.
Specialist think tanks stress that the absence of a relatively neutral third party complicates the management of local crises and the relaunch of an inclusive political framework. MINUSMA’s withdrawal does not on its own create the crisis in the peace process, but it removes an important instrument of facilitation and diplomatic pressure.
Effects on humanitarian aid and development
MINUSMA was not a humanitarian mission, but it provided logistical, security and political support to many humanitarian and development actors: securing convoys, sharing information, supporting coordination, making air assets available.
Its withdrawal results in:
- Greater constraints for NGOs and UN agencies, particularly regarding access to certain areas of the North and Centre, due to heightened insecurity or a lack of security guarantees.
- Greater dependence on national forces or other armed actors to secure operations, which raises questions of perceived neutrality and room for manoeuvre.
- Risks of scaling back some development activities in the most contested areas, in favour of a refocus on humanitarian emergencies.
The consequences vary by region and sector. Some organisations have sought new logistical and security arrangements, while others have reduced their presence or relocated their activities. The impact on the resilience of communities, already weakened by climatic, economic and security shocks, is a major watch point.
Geopolitical and regional reconfigurations
MINUSMA’s withdrawal is part of a broader reconfiguration of international engagement in the Sahel: the end of Operation Barkhane, the transformation of the G5 Sahel, the rise of new partners and the diplomatic repositioning of several states in the region.
Several dynamics overlap:
- Reduced Western military and UN presence in Mali, in favour of closer bilateral partnerships with certain states, notably Russia.
- Regional knock-on effects: debates on the effectiveness of international operations in the Sahel are feeding discussions in Niger, Burkina Faso and the coastal countries on what forms of external support are deemed acceptable.
- Questions about the future of UN peace operations in contexts where the legitimacy of missions is contested, even though stabilisation needs remain considerable.
For neighbouring countries, MINUSMA’s withdrawal raises the question of the risk of violence, flows of displaced people and trafficking spreading across borders, in a context where armed groups already operate on a regional scale. The coastal states of the Gulf of Guinea, in particular, are closely following these developments, aware of the interconnections between northern Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and their own northern regions.
Uncertainties and factors to watch
The impacts of MINUSMA’s withdrawal unfold over time. Several trends need to be observed with caution, drawing on the work of specialist organisations and field data:
- Evolution of violence against civilians, security forces and humanitarian actors in areas formerly under a strong UN presence.
- The Malian state’s capacity to secure territories durably, provide basic services and establish forms of governance regarded as legitimate by the population.
- The trajectory of the peace process with the signatory armed groups: resumption of political dialogue, hardening, fragmentation or realignment of alliances.
- The role of new security partners and how their action is perceived by local populations, regional neighbours and international actors.
Analyses converge on one point: MINUSMA’s withdrawal is neither the sole cause of Mali’s current difficulties nor a solution in itself. It amplifies pre-existing dynamics – a crisis of governance, local conflicts, competition between armed actors, geopolitical realignments – and opens a period of uncertainty in which many trajectories remain possible.