The contrast could hardly be starker: as the United States brokers an economic partnership between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in Washington, thousands of Malians flee westward toward Mauritania, escaping a grinding blockade by al-Qaeda-linked militants that has severed supply routes and triggered acute fuel shortages across the Sahel nation. These parallel developments reveal a fundamental divergence in how African crises are addressed—top-down economic frameworks imposed by external powers versus the unchecked expansion of non-state armed groups that render governance irrelevant for millions of civilians.
The Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) blockade that began in September 2025 has transformed economic warfare into a displacement engine, with over 1,020 Malians officially registered at the Fassala/Douienkara border crossing between October 23 and November 4 alone. The true number is certainly higher. JNIM's ongoing campaign of systematic terror, including mass executions of civilians across the region, serves as a brutal reminder that the group's strategy extends beyond resource denial to demonstrating state impotence. Mauritanian authorities now manage over 160,000 Malian refugees who have arrived since January 2024, a population swelling faster than humanitarian capacity can accommodate.
Blockade as insurgent governance
JNIM's approach represents insurgency evolution beyond territorial control toward systematic isolation of communities. By ambushing fuel convoys, burning tankers, and enforcing checkpoints on main roadways, the group has effectively severed Bamako's connection to much of the country's interior. Schools remained closed until November 9 due to fuel shortages. Nomadic families are stranded without mobility. The blockade creates cascading failures across essential services while demonstrating that Mali's military government—despite Russian Wagner Group support—cannot protect basic supply chains.
This is economic warfare designed to collapse governance from within. JNIM simultaneously enforces strict social controls including dress codes and music prohibitions, establishing parallel authority in areas where state presence has become purely theoretical. The November 6 kidnapping of five Indian nationals near the Mauritanian border illustrates how the group operates with impunity in zones the government claims to control. Civilians face impossible choices: endure JNIM's restrictions and violence, or flee toward uncertain refuge in neighboring states already overwhelmed by displacement.
The pattern repeats across the Sahel. Burkina Faso's military junta detains humanitarian workers while battling extremists, creating a dual crisis of authoritarianism and insurgency. Nearly 4 million people are displaced across the region as schools and hospitals collapse. The common thread: military governments promising security deliver neither protection nor governance, while external military support—whether French, Russian, or otherwise—proves incapable of reversing extremist expansion.
Members are reading: Why economic frameworks consistently fail without addressing the security vacuums and governance collapse that make them unimplementable.
African agency versus external templates
These divergent crises reveal a persistent pattern: external powers design frameworks—economic pacts, counter-terrorism partnerships, peace processes—that treat African conflicts as technical problems requiring proper incentive structures. Meanwhile, the lived reality for millions involves state collapse, extremist expansion, and displacement that no amount of economic integration or military support has reversed.
The Malian exodus toward Mauritania demonstrates what happens when insurgents adapt faster than counterinsurgency strategies. JNIM's blockade succeeds because it exploits fundamental state weakness that neither Wagner mercenaries nor military juntas can remedy. The DRC-Rwanda pact, however well-intentioned, layers economic cooperation onto unresolved security conflicts, betting that commercial integration will compel peace where mediation has failed.
Both approaches sideline the central question: what do affected populations need to rebuild security and governance from local foundations upward? Until that question drives policy rather than external powers' resource interests or counter-terrorism frameworks, the Sahel's displacement will continue, and Great Lakes peace agreements will remain aspirational documents disconnected from territorial realities.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
