Pan African Forum in Austria

Kadhafi’s Africa: The Untold Story-by J-P Pougala
*A- THE REAL REASONS FOR THE WAR IN LIBYA*

1- The first African satellite RASCOM 1

It was Libya’s Kadhafi who gave all of Africa its first real revolution in modern times: by ensuring universal coverage of the continent via telephone, television, radio-broadcast and the many other applications such as telemedicine and long-distance learning; for the first time in history, a low-cost connection became available across the continent, and even into rural areas thanks to a bridging WMAX system.

The story begins in 1992 when 45 African countries created the RASCOM organization to acquire an African satellite in order to bring down the cost of communications across the continent.

At that time, calling from or to Africa had the most expensive call rates in the world, since there was a surcharge of 500 million dollars which Europeans collected annually on telephone conversations even within some African countries, just to transmit voice messages via European satellites like Intelsat. An African satellite would barely cost 400 millions dollars payable once and thus avoiding the 500 million annual rental fees. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project?

But the difficult part of the equation remained unsettled: how does a beggar gain their freedom from exploitation by their master by borrowing money from this same master to achieve this?

And so, the World Bank, the IMF, USA, the European Union had needlessly been bilking these countries for over 14 years.

It was in 2006 that Kadhafi put an end to the agony of senseless begging from those supposed benefactors in the West who only grant loans at predatory rates; the Libyan leaders put 300 million dollars on the table, the African Development Bank put 50 million, the West African Development Bank contributed 27 million and it is thus, Africa has owned its very own communications satellite since December 26th 2000;

The very first communications satellite in its history. In the meantime, China and Russia have jumped in, this time by donating their own technology which allowed the launching of more new satellites; South-Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algerian and even a second African satellite was launched in July of 2010.

And by 2020, we are expecting the very first satellite which would be 100% African and built on African soil, specifically in Algeria. This satellite is expected to be amongst the best in the world, but would cost ten times cheaper, a true achievement.

This is how a simple gesture worth 300 millions dollars can change the lives on an entire continent.

Kadhafi’s Libya had cost the West not only the 500 million dollars annually but billions of dollars from debt and interest which this debt would have generated ad infinitum and exponentially, and contributed towards sustaining the obscure system which continues to rob Africa blind.

2- African Monetary Fund, African Central Bank, African Investment Bank

The 30 billion dollars which M. Obama confiscated belongs to the Libyan Central Bank and was earmarked as the Libyan contribution toward the finalization of the African Federation in its three keystone phases:

The African Investment Bank to be based in Sitre-Libya, The creation in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund with a startup capital of 42 billion dollars with Yaoundé as its headquarters, the African Central Bank with its headquarters in Abuja-Nigeria from which, the first issuance of legal tender would signal the end of the CFA Franc through which Paris has been able to pillage some African countries for over 50 years. From this we can understand France’s grudge against Kadhafi.

The African Monetary Fund would supplant in each and every way the activities of the International Monetary Fund on African soil – a role which, using barely 25 billion dollars in capital, the IMF had been able to bring an entire continent to its knees through questionable privatization policies, as witnessed by the reality of forcing African countries to trade-in one public monopoly for a private monopoly.

It was these same Western countries which came knocking at the door trying to become members of the African Monetary Fund (AMF) and its was via a unanimous vote of 16-17 in December 2010 in Yaoundé that Africans rejected this proposition, enshrining that only African countries would be members of the AMF.

It therefore seems obvious that after Libya, the Western coalition will declare its next war against Algeria, since, in addition to its enormous energy resources, that country has financial reserves exceeding 150 Billion Euros.

This is much coveted by all the countries which are now bombing Libya all of whom have the same things in common, they are all practically bankrupt, the USA alone has 14.000 billion dollars in debt, France, Great Britain and Italy each have 2.000 Billion in public debt while all the 46 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa have less than 400 billion dollars in total public debt.

Launching fake wars in Africa in the hopes of finding the oxygen needed to fuel their economic apnea that would only worsen having the effect of pushing the West further into a decline which began in 1884, during the notorious Berlin Conference.

As the American economist Adam Smith had predicted in 1865, in his support for Abraham Lincoln’s abolition of slavery, «the economies of all countries which practice the enslavement of Black people are in the throes of a decent into hell which would be a rude awakening on the day when all the other nations would awaken»

3- REGIONAL TRADE BLOCS AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CREATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AFRICA

In order to de-stabilize and destroy the African Union which is tending dangerously (as judged by the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Kadhafi, the European Union had tried, unsuccessfully, to create the UfM (Union for the Mediterranean1).

At all cost, they had to pry North Africa away from the rest of the continent by hammering the same racists themes of the 18th and 19th centuries according to which the African populations of Arab extraction were more “advanced”, and more “civilized” than the rest of the continent.

That plan failed when Kadhafi would not play along.

He had quickly understood the game from the moment when there was all that talk about the Mediterranean which [only] involved some African countries without informing the African Union, but at the same time, inviting ALL the 27 member nations of the European Union.

The UfM without the principal engine of the African Federation was dead on arrival, moribund with Sarkozy as its President and Mubarak, its vice-president. It is this same idea which Alain Juppé is trying to re-launch, as he eyes Kadhafi’s fall from power, of course.

What African leaders don’t understand is that, as long as it is the European Union which is financing the African Union, we will remain stuck at the starting-line, because under these conditions, there will be no effective independence.

It is in this same vein that the European Union has encouraged and financed the various regional trade blocs in African. It is obvious that ECOWAS which has an embassy in Brussels and which gets most of its financing from the EU, is a major obstacle to the creation of the African Federation.

It is what Lincoln fought against during the secessionist civil war in the United States, since, from the moment when a group of nations assemble around a regional political organization, that would only fracture the central governing authority.

This is what Europe wanted and it is what Africans did not understand by creating one after the other; COMESA, UDEAC, SADC and the Greater Maghreb Union which never became operational thanks in part to Kadhafi who understood the game all too well.

4- KADHAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO WAS ABLE TO CLEANSE THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID

Kadhafi is in the hearts of almost every African as a very generous humanitarian for his disinterested support in the fight against the racist regime of South Africa. If Kadhafi had been a self-centered man, nothing would have forced him to draw the ire of the West by financially and militarily support the ANC in its battle against apartheid.

Which is why, shortly after being released from his 27 years in prison, Mandela decided to break with the United Nation’s embargo against Libya in October 23rd of 1997. As a result of this embargo which was also aerial, no plane had landed in Libya over five long years. To go to Libya, one had to catch a plane into Tunisia; get to Djerba and continue by car for 5 hours to Ben Gardane, crossing the border and going another 3 hours by road across the desert to Tripoli.

On the other hand, one could go through Malta and then crossover by night, using poorly fitted boats and reach the Libyan coast. A true ordeal for an entire people, just to punish one man.

Mandela decided to breach this injustice and responded to the former American president Bill Clinton, who had considered this visit «unfortunate», Mandela argued: «No nation can claim to itself the role of a global policeman, and no nation can dictate to others what they must and must not do».

He added: «those who yesterday where friends of our enemies, today have the temerity of demanding that I should not visit my brother Kadhafi, they’re asking us to be ungrateful and to forget our friends from the past».

In fact, for the West, South African racists where kindred whom they were trying to protect. It is for this reason that members of the ANC had been branded dangerous terrorists, including Nelson Mandela himself.

It was only in July 2nd 2008 that the American Congress passed a law erasing Nelson Mandela’s name and those of his ANC comrades from this black list, not because they had come to terms with the idiocy of such a list, but because they wanted to make a gesture of goodwill to the 90-year-old Nelson Mandela.

If today the West has repented its support for Nelson Mandela’s enemies and are truly sincere when streets and places are christened after him, how do they justify waging war against the man who brought victory to Nelson Mandela and to his people, Kadhafi?

B- THOSE WHO WISH TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY, ARE THEY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?

And if Kadhafi’s Libya was more democratic than the USA, France, Great Britain and all of those who have a started a war to export democracy to Libya? On March 19th 2003, President Georges Bush dropped bombs on the heads of Iraqis under the pretext of exporting democracy to their country.

On March 19th 2011, eight years later and to the day, its is the French President who was dropping bombs on the heads of Libyans under the same pretext of bringing them democracy.

Mister Obama, 2009 Nobel Prize winner and President of the United States of America, in order to justify his decision to hurl cruise missiles from sub-marines on the heads of Libyans, the tells us that he is trying to unseat a dictators from power and to install a democracy in that country.

The question which ever human being gifted with the least in capacity for intellectual judgment and reason cannot help but ask: these countries like France, England, USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland whose only legitimacy to go an bombard Libyans is only based of having auto-declared themselves «democratic» are they truly democratic?

If yes, are they more democratic than Kadhafi’s Libya? The answer, unequivocally is NO, for the sole and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. Its not me asserting this, it is the very person whose birthplace, Geneva, is home to the organs of the United Nations.

That person is of course Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 who asserted in Chapter IV of Book III of his celebrated «Social Contract» that *: «there has never been a true democracy, and there never will be one»*.

In order for a State to be truly democratic, Rousseau lays down 4 conditions according to which Kadhafi’s Libya is by far more democratic than the United States of America, France and all the others who profess to export democracy into that country. These include:

1- *Dimensions of the State*: the bigger any government gets, the less it is democratic, according to Rousseau, the State should be very small to allow its citizens find ways of gathering and to enable each person to easily get to know the next.

And so before sending people off to vote, we should ensure that people know each other otherwise voting for the sake of voting would be denuded of all democratic underpinnings, it is a sham of a democracy to elect a dictator.

The organizing structure of the Libyan State is based on tribal groupings which by definition involves people in small entities.

The democratic sentiment is more present within a tribe, in the village than in the greater Nation, by virtue of the fact that everyone knows everyone else and that communal life revolves around the same common interests bring some kind of auto-regulation, auto censure is brought to bear at each moment, the reactions or the counter-reaction of the other members for or against the opinions which anyone may hold.

Seen from this perspective, it is Libya which better responds to the exigencies of Rousseau, one cannot say as much of the United States of America, France or Great Britain, societies which have become strongly urbanized and where a majority of neighbors do not even say hello to each other and hence do not even know each other, even after having lived side-by-side for twenty years.

In these countries, we have moved directly into the following phase: «voting» which we have malignantly sanctified so that many quickly forget that this vote is useless from the moment when I start speaking voting on matters affecting the nation’s future without knowing ones fellow citizens.

We have thus arrived at the stupidity of citizens voting from abroad.

Knowing one another and speaking to each other is the essential condition of communication for the democratic debate which should precede all elections.

2- *It requires a simplicity of values and behaviors* to avoid that we spend so much time talking about justice before courts and seeking redress to the many arguments of societal interest which any complex society naturally gives birth to.

Westerner define themselves as civilized people who have complex value systems and see Libyans a nation of primitive people, who have simple value systems.

From this perspective, once again, it is Libya which better responds to democratic criteria laid out by Rousseau than all those who pretend to give them lessons in democracy.

In a complex society, the manifold conflicts are resolved by the law of the powerful, since the wealthier party can avoid prison because he can afford a better attorney and more so, turns the State’s repressive apparatus against the person who steals a banana at a supermarket, instead of turning it against the greedy financier who brings down a bank.

In a city like New York where 75% of the population is White, 80% of the managerial positions are held by White people and they only represent 20% of the prison population.

3- *Equality in rank and in fortunes*. One only has to look at the 2010 FORBES rankings to see the names of the wealthiest people in each of the countries which is throwing bombs on the heads of Libyans and see the difference in salaries with the lowest ranking wage earners in each of these countries and do the same with Libya to understand that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya should be the one exporting its know-how to those who are attacking her and not the other way around.

Even from this angle, according to Rousseau, Libya would be more democratic than those who pompously want to export this supposed democracy to that country.

In the United States, 5% of the population possesses 60% of the nation’s wealth. It is the most lopsided, unequal country in the world.

4- *No luxuries*. According to Rousseau, for democracy to exist in a country, there must be no luxuries because, luxury necessitates wealth and this last becomes a virtue, the goal to be achieved at all cost is the people’s wealth fare, «luxuries simultaneously corrupt both the rich and the poor, the former by possession, the latter by coveting; it sells the nation to listlessness, to vanity; if serves the citizens up to the State for dinner, the former to meet the needs of the latter, and each is happy in their role ».

Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? All those cautionary tales from employees who have been pushed to suicide, even employees of public and para public companies, for “reasons” of profitability and hence of possessions of luxury items by one of the parties, are these more abundant in Libya or in the West?

In 1956, the American sociologist C. Wright Mills described American democracy as « a dictatorship of the elites».

According to Mills, The United States of America isn’t a democracy because in fact, it is money which speaks at elections and not the people. The results of any election there is an expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people.

After Daddy Bush and Son Bush, for the Republic primaries of 2012, there is already talk about Bush-Benjamin. In addition, if political power rests on a bureaucracy, Max Weber has noted that there are 43 millions civil servants and soldiers in the United-States who essentially control the country, but who weren’t elected by anyone and who do not respond directly to the people about their activities. Only one person (a wealthy elite) is really elected but real power on the ground is held by a caste of rich people who arrive at those positions simply through appointments to positions such as ambassadorships, army generals etc ….

How many people in these supposedly «democratic» countries know that in Peru the constitution forbids a second consecutive mandate for the incumbent president? How many of them are aware than in Guatemala, not only can the incumbent NOT present himself as a candidate to that position, but none of his/her kin, no member of his family could aspire to that position?

How many of them know that Rwanda is the leading nation in the world that is most inclusive of women with 49% of the parliamentarians being women?

How many of them know that in the 2007 CIA ranking, of the top-ten best-governed countries in the world, four are African? With the gold medal going to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represent only 1.14% of its GDP.

Civil war, revolts, and rebellions are the ingredients indicating the telltale signs of an emerging democracy Rousseau argues. Democracy isn’t an end result, it is a permanent process of re-affirming the natural rights of human beings and all over the world (without exception) a handful of men or women, should confiscate the people’s power, and subvert it to help maintain themselves in power.

Everywhere, we find various forms of castes which subvert the very idea of a «democracy» which should be an ideal towards which aspire and not a label to appropriate or a refrain to be flaunted just because we can shout louder than everyone else.

When a nation is calm like France or the United States that is devoid of any political unrest for Rousseau all of this only means that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to prevent any attempts at rebellion. If Libyans are revolting, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

It is when people around the world stoically accept the system which is oppressing them that is very bad. Rousseau concludes: « /Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium -/translation: If there were ever a godly people, they would govern themselves democratically.

Such a perfect system of government does not suit human beings». Asserting that Libyans are being killed for their own good is a delusion.

*C- WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA? *

After 500 years of master-servant relations with the West, there is no room to doubt that we have different criteria for judging good and bad.

We have profoundly divergent interests.

How could one not decry the “yes” vote by three African countries from Sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria2, South-Africa and Gabon for resolution 1973 authorizing the new form of colonialism called «protecting the people», validating the racist theories which Europeans have been peddling since the 18th century that North African has nothing in common with Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa is more evolved, more civilized and more cultivated than the rest of Africa.

Events are unfolding as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria weren’t part of Africa3. Even the United Nations appears to be ignoring the legitimacy of the African Union over its member States.

The goal is to isolate the nations of Sub-Saharan African and to further fragment them and keep them under control. In fact, for the startup capital of the new African Monetary Fund (AMF), Algeria contributed 16 billion dollars and Libya 10 billion dollars which together represented 62% of the 42 billion Dollar capitalization needed. Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria followed by South Africa came in far behind with 3 billion dollars each.

It is very troubling that this is the first time in the history of the United Nations that it has declared war on a people without first exploring any path of peaceful resolution to address the problem.

Does Africa still have a place in such an organization? Nigeria South Africa are disposed to voting “Yes” to any demands from the West, because the naively believe in the promises made to them by this or that nation to award them a place as a permanent member of the Security Council with equal veto rights.

They forget that France has no power to grant such a position. If France did, Mitterrand would have done this long ago for Germany’s Helmut Kohl.

United Nations’ reform is not on the agenda.

The only way to counter this is through the Chinese option: all 50 African countries should quit the United Nations. They’d have to return another day, and only after they have been granted something they’ve always wanted, a position for the African Union, nothing less.

This method of non-violence is the only weapon of justice that the poor and weak people like us have. We simply have to quit the United Nations, since this organization by its very structure, and via its hierarchy serves the interest of the most powerful members.

We have to quit the United Nations to signal our disapproval of this conception of the world based solely on the crushing of the weaker nations. At the very least, they’d be at liberty to continue doing it as before, but without our endorsement, and not having to suggest that were have endorsed it even though they know well that we were never consulted.

And after we have made our point, as we did during the meeting on Saturday 19/3 in Nouakchott through the declaration of opposition to military action, all of which was quietly ignored in order to proceed with the bombardment of an African people.

What is unfolding today is the same scenario already witnessed before vis-à-vis China. Today, they are recognizing the legitimacy of the Ouattara government; they also are recognizing the legitimacy of the insurgents in Libya.

It is the same thing which happened at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community had chosen Taiwan as the sole representative of the Chinese people in place of Mao Tse Tung’s China.

It took 26 years, that is until October 25th 1971 and resolution 2758 which ALL Africans must read, to put an end to this human absurdity. China was admitted, only after it demanded and obtained permanent membership [on the Security Council] and with vetoing rights, if not, she would not join. Once these requirement were met and the admission resolutions were in force, it took another year until November 29th 1972, for the Chinese foreign Minister to issues his response in a letter to the Secretary General at the United Nations no to say “Yes” or “Thank You”, but to dispel any misunderstandings, in guarantees about China’s dignity and respectability.

What can Africans expect from the United Nations without taking strong actions which insist on their respectability?

In Cote d’Ivoire we saw an official from the United Nations acting as if he was above the constitutional institutions of that country.

We have entered into this organization under conditions that we would be serfs and them believing that we would be invited to the table to eat with other nation on plates which we had to wash is simply wishful thinking, worse, stupid. When the AU recognized Ouattara’s victory without taking into account the contrary conclusions of its own observers on the ground, only to please their former masters, how could we possibly expect any respect?

When South-African President Zuma declares that Ouattara had not won the elections and then changed his mind 180° after visiting Paris4, we must begin to question what these leaders are worth who represent us and who speak on behalf of one billion Africans.

Force and real freedom for Africa will come from its capacity to acting after thoughtful consideration and them assuming the consequences of those actions. Dignity and respectability come at a price. Are we prepared to pay that price? If not, then our place will continue to be in the kitchen, in the toilets to secure the comfort of others.

Geneva 28/03/2011
Jean-Paul Pougala – pougala@gmail.com

Info d’Abidjan-29/5/2011

Il était intéressant de voir l’investiture de Ouattara en tant que Président de la Côte d’Ivoire au milieu de ses partisans français, ceux des Nations Unies, les bouchers et assassins de ses forces armées. Cela m’a rappelé le vieux proverbe Igbo “Umunna Ikwikwi Ahuru nyuru si Ya Ya kwere egwu, ha si ya tufia anghi ekwere IHE Ojoo egwu” “Un hibou péta et demanda à être loué par ses parents, ils se moquaient de lui et lui dirent qu’il n’était pas l’ayant droit à la danse de l’abomination”. Le spectacle entier était une abomination.

Ce nouveau président de la Côte d’Ivoire, un ressortissant de nationalité Burkinabé, a été installé dans son siège par une campagne meurtrière de la violence contre une population civile désarmée en grande partie par l’armée française, l’ONU, une bande de policiers Nigérian connu sur le nom de “Kill and Go” et les rebelles, “dozos et des mercenaires” recrutés dans le but de tuer les Ivoiriens fidèles au président Gbagbo. Ils sont descendus dans une orgie de viols, d’assassinat, de pillage et destruction sans motif des bâtiments du gouvernement et des commerces privés. Les «rebelles» ont détruit presque tous les bâtiments du gouvernement, ils ont détruit presque tous les documents publics; ils ont détruit toutes les universités et la plupart des écoles, et ils allèrent dans une frénésie de pillage et ces attaques ont fait près de 2.000 étudiants morts en l’espace d’une semaine. A l’intérieur du pays, ces rebelles arrêtaient les cars et les voitures de personnes fuyant le carnage. Si les gens étaient Guéré, Bété ou tout groupe qui ne pouvaient pas comprendre ou parler le dioula ou le malinké (les principales langues du Nord), ils sont fusillés sur place. Cela atteint son paroxysme à Duékoué où près de 800 personnes avaient été massacrés dans les tout début.

A Abidjan, dans des endroits comme Yopougon le massacre continu contre d’anciens membres des forces restées loyales à Gbagbo et les politiciens qui lui sont fidèles, sont rassemblés par les rebelles, puis tué sur le coup ou détenu pendant un certain temps dans les prisons. Le blâme est placé sur “anonymement” des mercenaires libériens, pour justifier leur crime. Il s’agit là d’une fiction complète car les mercenaires libériens ont pris leur butin volé, pris possession de toutes les voitures gouvernementales et camions, et sont rentrés chez eux au Libéria il y a des semaines de cela.

Ainsi donc, la «communauté internationale» a soutenu la réinstauration de l’état colonial français dans le pays et a offert un soutien et assistance à Ouattara. Ils ont refusé l’entrée des avocats français de Gbagbo et, avec un toupet incroyable, ils ont entamé des procédures judiciaires contre Gbagbo pour “crimes de guerre”. L’utilisation, par les Nations Unies et les Français d’hélicoptères de combat russes dans leur façon de dynamitage de la résidence de Gbagbo a été précédé par des jours de bombardement à travers Abidjan où des milliers de civils innocents ont été tués ou blessés par les balles et les missiles lancés à partir de ces hélicoptères de combat. Ces hélicoptères de combat sont déployés à une distance d’environ 2 km de leur cible. Les Mi24 et Gazelles ont pilonné des zones civiles. Ces hélicoptères de combat ne sont pas précisément des armes à ciblage exacte. Il y a une dispersion d’au moins 15% de toutes les armes de chaque côté. Rien n’est guidé avec ces types d’appareils. Cela signifie que si vous tirez à 2km, vous avez un écart de 300 m au moins (environ 150 mètres de chaque côté de la cible dans une zone urbaine;.. qui couvre une large bande de civils innocents. Les Français et l’ONU le savait, mais cela n’a fait aucune différence pour eux. Ils ont maintenant latitude d’accuser les troupes de Gbagbo de crimes de guerre. Les ONG internationales ne sont pas non plus mieux.

Pour être juste, la bagarre sanglante lancée par les rebelles et les Nations unies après le deuxième tour de l’élection présidentielle contesté en Décembre 2010 et la déclaration précipitée et erronée que Ouattara avait gagné n’était pas l’origine du conflit. Le plan avait déjà été établi en 2002 avec le petit groupe de soldats mutins de Guéi mécontents avec le soutien des Français. Cela a eu pour effet de diviser le pays en deux. Cette partition a survécu jusqu’à l’Accord de Ouagadougou, quand les rebelles de nouveau ont accepté de désarmer et l’ONU a envoyé des casques bleus musulmans du Pakistan, du Maroc, de la Jordanie, du Bangladesh, etc pour promouvoir la neutralité et la paix dans ce qui est devenu conflit à la fois religieux et politique.

Sans entrer dans l’histoire de la Côte d’Ivoire et de ses pourparlers de paix et d’accords, certains éléments clés peuvent être vus. Le point le plus saillant est que depuis le début il y a eu un accord par les parties en compétition en Côte d’Ivoire et aussi que l’ONU devrait désarmer les rebelles. Malgré au moins cinq accords cela n’est jamais arrivé et l’ONU n’a jamais appliqué cela, ni même forcer les rebelles à cela. Les élections de 2005 ont été reportées par l’ONU au motif qu’il ne pouvait y avoir une élection juste sans le désarmement. Pourquoi l’ONU n’a jamais imposé ses propres conventions, jugements et obligations car cela serait une leçon de pointe. La «communauté internationale» appuyé par l’ONU essayait d’éviter de prendre ses responsabilités. Comme l’Etat français étaient en train de planifier son coup de force et d’attaques contre les forces de Gbagbo personne n’avait la moindre des attentes ce côté-là, mais l’inertie de l’ONU a laissé perplexes de nombreux observateurs.

Le second élément en jeu est la trahison du PDCI et du RDR. Les deux parties ont été légalement partie prenante du gouvernement Gbagbo et obligé, en vertu de la Constitution de lutter contre les rebelles. Les deux traîtreusement les ont soutenus à la place. Ils ont pris les sièges du Cabinet avec les rebelles dans les gouvernements de coalition forcé sur la Côte d’Ivoire. Un gouvernement plus confiant et confident aurait mis aux arrêts Ouattara et Bédié et les inculper pour trahison au lieu de les récompenser. Le meilleur précédent pour cela est le fameux discours d’Abraham Lincoln en 1858 qui reflète la situation Côte-d’Ivoire, «Une maison divisée contre elle-même ne peut subsister. Je crois que ce gouvernement ne peut pas supporter, de façon permanente, esclave moitié-moitié libre. Je ne m’attends pas à ce que l’Union soit dissoute- Je ne m’attends pas à ce que la maison tombe (faillisse) – mais je m’attends à ce qu’il cesse d’être divisé. Le tout deviendra une chose ou l’autre». Les Ivoiriens manquent une telle vision et leurs maîtres coloniaux font en sorte que cela ne puisse arriver.

En tout état de cause, que peut-on attendre d’un gouvernement Ouattara? Il n’y a aucune chance qu’il y ait une réconciliation pour les meurtres et la destruction délibérée par ceux qui l’ont soutenu. Il y aura un ressentiment farouche sur le rôle de la communauté internationale et une durable hostilité ethnique. Il y a beaucoup de soldats de Gbagbo encore dans le pays et nombreux sont ceux qui seront de retour en provenance du Ghana et du Libéria. Leur temps viendra.

Alors que la chouette continue à péter, il ne saura jamais convaincre quiconque qu’il n’est pas toujours une abomination.

Dr. Gary K. Busch

Samedi 21 mai 2011 6 21 /05 /Mai /2011 23:22

LES TRAITRES

En cette triste journée pour la Côte d’Ivoire et l’Afrique, la republication de ce texte d’une actualité stupéfiante de Marcus Garvey semble plus qu’opportune: nécessaire.

Dans la lutte pour s’élever, les opprimés sont toujours handicapés par ceux d’entre eux qui trahissent leur propre race, c’est-à-dire par les hommes de peu de foi, et tous ceux qui se laissent corrompre et acceptent de vendre les droits de leurs propres frères.

Nous non plus, membres de la race noire, ne sommes pas totalement à l’abri de ce genre de fléau. Si j’exprime le fond de ma pensée, je dirai même que nous en sommes affligés plus que toute autre race, parce que nous n’avons pas la formation et la préparation nécessaires pour occuper la place qui nous revient parmi les peuples et les nations du monde. Chez les autres races, le rôle du traitre se limite en général à l’individu médiocre et irresponsable. Les traîtres de la race noire, malheureusement, sont la plupart du temps, des gens haut placés par l’instruction et la position sociale, ceux-là même qui s’arrogent le titre de leaders. De nos jours, en effet, tout individu, ou presque, qui tente sa chance comme leader de la race, commence par s’établir, tel un animal domestique, dans les faveurs d’un philanthrope d’une autre race : il va le voir, dénigre sa race dans les termes les plus vils, humilie sa fierté d’homme, et gagne ainsi la sympathie du «grand bienfaiteur», qui lui dicte ce qu’il doit faire dans son rôle de leader de la race noire. En général, c’est : «Va dire à tes gens d’être humbles et soumis ; dis leur d’être de bons serviteurs, obéissants et loyaux envers leur maître. Si tu leur enseignes ce genre de doctrine, tu peux toujours compter sur moi pour te donner 1000 dollars, ou 5000 dollars par an de revenus, pour ton journal et l’institution que tu représentes. Je te recommanderai à mes amis comme un brave homme sans problèmes».

Nanti de ces avis, et d’une promesse de patronage, le leader noir ordinaire s’en va guider les masses infortunées. Il nous dit tout le bien possible de Mr Untel, nous racontes combien nous avons de bons amis dans l’autre race, et assure que tout ira bien à condition qu’on s’en remette complètement à lui. Voici le genre de direction que nous subissons depuis un demi-siècle. Je ne vois là rien d’autre que perfidie et trahison de la pire espèce.

Si l’homme qui met en difficulté son pays est un traître, celui qui brade les droits de sa race n’est pas autre chose. Tant que nous ne serons pas établis en tant que nation de 400 millions d’hommes, et que nous n’aurons pas fait comprendre à ceux qui se sont placés à notre tête que nous sommes mécontents et dégoûtés ; tant que nous n’aurons pas choisi nous-mêmes un leader envers qui nous remplirons nos engagements, nous serons incapables de sortir du bourbier de la dégradation et de nous élever vers la liberté, la prospérité et l’estime humaine.

Marcus Garvey

---

TRAITORS

In the fight to reach the top the oppressed have always been encumbered by the traitors of their own race, made up of those of little faith and those who are generally susceptible to bribery for the selling out of the rights of their own people. As Negroes, we are not entirely free of such an encumbrance. To be outspoken, I believe we are more encumbered in this way than any other race in the world, because of the lack of training and preparation for fitting us for our place in the world among nations and races.

The traitor of other races is generally confined to the mediocre or irresponsible individual, but, unfortunately, the traitors among the Negro race are generally to be found among the men highest placed in education and society, the fellows who call themselves leaders. For us to examine ourselves thoroughly as a people we will find that we have more traitors than leaders, because nearly everyone who essays to lead the race at this time does so by first establishing himself as the pet of some philanthropist of another race, to whom he will go and debase his race in the worst form, humiliate his own manhood, and thereby win the sympathy of the “great benefactor”, who will dictate to him what he should do in the leadership of the Negro race. It is generally “You must go out and teach your people to be meek and humble; tell them to be good servants, loyal and obedient to their masters. If you will teach them such a doctrine you can always depend on me to give you $1,000 a year or $5,000 a year for the support of yourself, the newspaper or the institution you represent. I will always recommend you to my friends as a good fellow who is all right.”

With this advice and prospect of patronage the average Negro leader goes out to lead the unfortunate mass. These leaders tell us how good Mr. So and So is, how many good friends we have in the opposite race, and that if we leave everything to them all will work out well. This is the kind of leadership we have been having for the last fifty years. It is nothing else but treachery and treason of the worst kind.

The man who will compromise the attitude of his country is a traitor, and even so the man who will compromise the rights of his race can be classified in no other way than that of a traitor also. Not until we settle down as four hundred million people and have let the men who have placed themselves in the lead of us realize that we are disgusted and dissatisfied, and that we shall have a leadership of our own and stick by it when we get it, will we be able to lift ourselves from this mire of degradation to the heights of prosperity, human liberty and human appreciation.

Marcus Garvey

A Mon Très cher Laurent,

Mon petit-frère a mentionné quelque chose (dont je tairai les détails ici pour des raisons de sécurité) qui m’a fait comprendre toute ta stratégie jusqu’à ce jour c’est ce que tu essayais de me faire comprendre il y a six ans. Tout d’abord, que Simone et toi sachez que je suis très meurtrie dans ma chair pour tous ces pauvres innocents Ivoiriens tués tout simplement parce qu’ils ont crus à ton combat et continuerai de l’être jusqu’à ce que vos compagnons et vous soyez libérés. Si je prends ce qui est arrivé à la Côte d’Ivoire sur le plan spirituel, je me dis que le pays est entrain de portez sa croix à travers toi, tout comme notre Seigneur Jésus Christ de Nazareth. Oui, comme tu le sais, notre pays a servi de base arrière pour l’assassinat de Thomas Sankara, la déstabilisation du Libéria, de la Sierra Leone et de tant d’autres pays ou le sang de beaucoup de nos frères africains a coulé. A une époque pas très lointaine aussi notre pays a été collaboratrice avec l’apartheid, dans la guerre du Biafra, la chute de Kwame Nkrumah, Modibo Keita, Hamani Diori, etc… sans oublier la déstabilisation de la Guinée Conakry de Sékou Touré et tant d’autres pays au Sud du Sahara. La Côte d’Ivoire à une part de responsabilité sur ce que les organisations Africaines sont aujourd’hui à 90% sous l’entreprise des forces impérialistes. Depuis son indépendance elle a encouragé que ces fils et filles soient aveuglés par le goût du ventre ce qui est l’argent, l’individualisme, la corruption, la prostitution intellectuelle, politique et économique etc… Mais aujourd’hui c’est toi Laurent Koudou Gbagbo qui paye car le pays se repent à travers toi. Tout comme notre seigneur tes bourreaux pensent t’avoir humilié voir détruit mais Mon Cher Grand Frère regarde ce qui est entrain de se passer le conseil de sage qui est venu te voir ne pouvait pas te regarder dans les yeux car tu es un Homme Digne, Courageux, le Woody de Mama, le Kunta Kinté de l’Afrique, le Soundiata Kéita, le Samory Touré et le Béhanzin des temps modernes, le vrai Garçon pour ainsi dire le vrai Fils de l’Afrique. Tout comme le Christ il a fallu les romains pour que ses ennemis viennent à bout de lui, dans ton cas il a fallu la France, les USA et l’ONU pour que les ennemis viennent à bout de la Côte d’Ivoire que tu représentes mais comme il est écrit dans la bible le Christ a eu la victoire sur ses ennemis donc quelque soit ce que la Côte d’Ivoire à travers toi est entrain d’endurer elle aura la victoire sur ses ennemis ce n’est qu’une question de temps car un dicton africain dit ceci ‘’le bois sec tombé dans le marigot ne se changera jamais en Caïman’’. En effet, Ouattara bafouera la constitution, tuera, torturera, brulera, affamera, intimidera, vendra, et violera les enfants de Côte d’Ivoire cela ne changera pas le fait que tout ce que les rebelles et dozos commettent comme exactions au Golf et à travers toute la Côte d’Ivoire sont ses ordres directs; le pauvre dans son subconscient et sa chair il sait qu’il n’est pas ivoirien, il n’est pas le président légalement élu par les ivoiriens. Ce qu’il est c’est le moins homme et l’usurpateur de toujours accompagné par sa compagne ‘’la dame de la mort (tous les hommes qui l’ont touchée sont mort donc la sienne ne saurait tardée), la prostituée et fille du diable’’, l’hérodiade (Marc : ch6-14-29), de notre temps que l’usurpateur alassane ouattara a épousé après la mort de son demi-frère Lamine Fadiga Africain bien-sûre (comme tu vois Mon Cher Laurent la Bible se répète) ; qui veut à tout prix égaler notre Très Chère Amazone de la nouvelle Afrique Ta Bien-Aimée et Notre Très Chère Sœur Simone qu’elle n’arrivera jamais à la cheville. Une chose est sure ils ont été tous les deux importés et imposés au prix de la vie de milliers d’innocents Ivoiriens par les forces impérialistes, occultes, traitrises et sanguinaires aussi bien ivoiriennes qu’africaines que tu connais.

Tu sais en 2005 lorsque je te critiquais pour ta générosité envers tes adversaires politiques, ta patience avec les rebelles, ta naïveté avec la France, ta tolérance pour les écrits des journaux de l’opposition, ta responsabilité devant la prolifération des faux pasteurs et prophètes, ta promptitude à satisfaire chaque demande des assaillants, ton acharnement pour la recherche de la paix, ton refus d’utiliser toute force extérieure pour combattre les rebelles, j’essayais de te faire comprendre que tu étais un Chef d’Etat et non le Pape Jean Paul II mon argument était que Israël qui est Israël a une des armées les plus puissantes au monde, et même dans l’ancien testament tous les grands rois avaient de grandes armées pourquoi voulais-tu être plus royaliste que le roi? Un Chef d’Etat est le protecteur du peuple, le premier responsable de l’armée donc c’est tout d’abord un guerrier comment pouvais-tu tolérer tout ce cafouillage que les chefs de l’opposition et rebelles faisaient sous ta présidence? On dirait que ta foi était entrain de t’aveugler et tout cela pourrait se traduire en signe de grandes faiblesses de ta part et c’était vraiment décourageant. Tu m’avais répondu que j’étais une ‘’petite fille’’ qui ne savait pas de quoi elle parlait; je ne t’avais pas comprise et je t’avais même boudée donc tout ce que tu disais ce jour-là à table était rentré dans une oreille pour sortir de l’autre, je n’avais pas prêté attention à ce que tu disais jusqu’aujourd’hui, pour cela je te demande ‘’PARDON’’ car maintenant je sais que tout acte que tu avais posé était stratégique (c’est pour cela que tu ne voulais pas que tes autres frères Chefs d’Etats Africains qui te supportaient s’emmêlent), cette dernière a payé parce que tous les ennemis de la Côte d’Ivoire sont tombés dans ton piège ainsi que tous les traitres ivoiriens, grâce à toi les masques sont enfin tombés. Ce n’était pas parce que tu ne savais leurs intentions, ou ne pouvais pas faire face à toutes leurs manigances et manipulations, c’était simplement parce que tu avais l’intérêt suprême de la Côte d’Ivoire comme priorité, le reste n’était que pure distraction. La france et ses sbires le savaient c’est pour cela qu’il ont tout fait pour que le pays brûle sous toi mais en vain, tout fait pour qu’il y ait une guerre ethnique sous toi mais en vain, tout fait pour qu’il y ait une guerre civile sous toi mais en vain, tout fait pour qu’il y ait des coups d’états sous toi mais en vain, tout fait pour t’empêcher de gouverner mais en vain, tout fait pour que tu sois asphyxié sous les embargos mais en vain et finalement le monde entier a vu ce que la france a été obligée de faire, la seule option pour sa survie en Côte d’Ivoire voire même sur le plan international (ce n’est que partie remise).

Pour cela je dis ‘’Amen’’ parce que tu as démontré que la force n’a pas été inventée par tes ennemis car la violence est une question de choix, la maitrise de soi et le dialogue ne peuvent émaner que des hommes forts et puissants dont tu fais partie, Martin Luther King et Mahatma Gandhi l’ont démontrés. Tu as demandé à ce qu’on te fasse parvenir la bible et le livre sur les plus grands leaders du monde cela veut dire ce que cela veut dire et pour ceux qui ne pourront pas lire entre les lignes, ils comprendront plus tard car comme tu aimes si bien le dire le temps est un autre nom de Dieu. Ta stratégie pour l’avenir de la Côte d’Ivoire montrera à tous les patriotes ébranlés que ta foi ne t’avait pas affaibli mais tu avais fait la part des choses pour que vive la Côte d’Ivoire de demain. Gagner une bataille, ce n’est pas gagner la guerre, le fils de lucifer, le sanguinaire, le mouton de la ville, l’usurpateur et candidat de l’étranger alassane dramane ouattara a montré que la Côte d’Ivoire ne veut pas de lui, il décrète trois jours de deuil et fui à l’étranger, Hééé…. grand frère ce monsieur continu de sauter les murs! La france, l’onu et les états-unis ne resteront pas éternellement collés à ses fesses donc qui vivra verra! Tu as même dis aussi que si tu tombais que les patriotes t’enjambent et continuent le combat, ne t’en fais pas la résistance continue à travers l’arme puissante de communication mondiale moderne, l’inégalant internet. Aah… Grand Frère la témérité et la ténacité, de la jeunesse patriotique tant qu’Ivoirienne qu’Africaine avec cette arme, feront ta fierté. Je profite de l’occasion pour leur dire Grand Merci… !!!

A propos, si tu ne le sais pas encore les caleçons sont entrain de tomber alors que le banc présidentiel que le fossoyeur de l’étranger cherchait n’a pas encore été chauffé, eh oui ils ont déjà tué ibrahim coulibaly alias ‘’ib’’, soumaila bakayoko est parait-il en résidence surveillée et dominique strauss kahn a été littéralement pris la main dans le caleçon marrant nicholas paul stéphane sarközy de nagy-bocsa en profite pour se débarrasser de son rival en utilisant barack hussein obama pour l’humilier au maximum c’est ce qui arrive aux personnes ‘’qui partagent leur lit avec leur ennemi’’ (en anglais cela se dit : ‘’sleeping with the enemy’’, donc aux membres de RHDP…..), en effet ensemble ils t’ont tous fait front mais ….…. A qui le tour ?? Mon Très Cher Grand Frère, saches-ci quelque soit ton destin tu as non seulement ouvert les yeux mais tu fais la fierté de toute la jeunesse Africaine et de toutes celles qui suivront car tout à Africain averti sait que devant toi :

- barack hussein obama: c’est comment comment ….. les Africains ont vu que c’est

vraiment maïs !!!

- nicholas paul stéphane sarközy de nagy-bocsa: c’est comment comment….. les

Africains ont vu que c’est vraiment maïs !!!

-alassane dramane ouattara : c’est comment comment ….. les Africains ont vu que

c’est vraiment maïs !!!

- aboulaye wade: c’est comment comment ….. les Africains ont vu que c’est vraiment

maïs !!!

-blaise compaoré : c’est comment comment ….. les Africains ont vu que c’est

vraiment maïs !!!

-françois bozizé: c’est comment comment ….. les Africains ont vu que c’est vraiment

maïs !!!

-denis sassou nguesso : c’est comment comment ….. les Africains ont vu que c’est

vraiment maïs !!!

-ali ondimba bongo: c’est comment comment….. les Africains ont vu que c’est

vraiment maïs !!!

-alpha condé: c’est comment comment….. les Africains ont vu que c’est vraiment

maïs !!!

-faure gnassingbé: c’est comment comment….. les Africains ont vu que c’est vraiment

maïs !!!

- Idriss Déby: c’est comment comment….. les Africains ont vu que c’est vraiment

maïs !!!

- Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete: c’est comment comment….. les Africains ont vu que c’est

vraiment maïs !!!

-la menace du tpi: c’est comment comment….. les Africains ont vu que c’est vraiment

maïs !!!

Pour finir Mon Cher Laurent, je dirais à tous ceux qui posent la question de savoir pourquoi les gens ne sortent pas pour chasser le fils de lucifer ouattara l’usurpateur comme ils ont fait au temps du Général Guéi s’ils ne voulaient pas de lui? A ceux-là je dirais plutôt pourquoi les gens n’ont pas jubilés et ne continuent pas de jubiler depuis ton arrestation et particulièrement depuis sa dernière mise en scène devant le Conseil Constitutionnel?

J’ajouterai ceci les gens sortirons pour s’occuper des dozos et des cafards qui pullulent partout à Abidjan et dans le reste de la Côte d’Ivoire, lorsque la France, les USA et l’ONU se retireront, autant de Guéi tout ce beau monde n’était pas là c’est pour cela qu’il a pu être évincé, même chose en 2002 avec les rebelles! Encore une fois Mon Cher Laurent, tu resteras pour moi, mes compatriotes et la vraie jeunesse Africaine le Président démocratiquement élu de la Côte d’Ivoire ce qui fait de toi eternellement: Son Excellence Monsieur Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, Président de la République de Côte d’Ivoire.

Dans tous les cas ayons confiance au Dieu tout puissant car comme mon petit frère aime si bien le dire: ‘’Today is today. Tomorrow is Another Day !’’

Que Dieu Te bénisse ainsi que Simone, tous vos collaborateurs et tous ces Ivoiriens qui sont encore aux mains des bourreaux d’hérodiade dominique folloroux ouattara et du fils de lucifer, le sanguinaire ouattara l’usurpateur et indigne fils de l’Afrique.

Pour la patrie ou la mort nous vaincrons. Que Dieu Bénisse la Côte D’Ivoire!

Jocelyne Toure
Source: ivoirediaspo.net

Samedi 30 avril 2011 6 30 /04 /Avr /2011 09:41
Thabo Mbeki: “What the world got wrong in Côte d’Ivoire”

The second round of the Nov. 30, 2010, presidential elections in Côte d’Ivoire pitted against each other two long-standing political opponents, Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara. For this reason, and of strategic importance, it was inevitable that this electoral contest would decide the long-term future of the country. Everybody concerned should have probed very seriously the critical question: Would the 2010 elections create the conditions that would establish the basis for the best possible future for the Ivorian people?

This was not done.

Rather, the international community insisted that what Côte d’Ivoire required to end its crisis was to hold democratic elections, even though the conditions did not exist to conduct such elections. Though they knew that this proposition was fundamentally wrong, the Ivorians could not withstand the international pressure to hold the elections.

However, the objective reality is that the Ivorian presidential elections should not have been held when they were held. It was perfectly foreseeable that they would further entrench the very conflict it was suggested they would end.

The 2002 rebellion in Côte d’Ivoire divided the country into two parts, with the north controlled by the rebel Forces Nouvelles, which supported Alassane Ouattara, and the south in the hands of the Gbagbo-led government. Since then, Côte d’Ivoire has had two governments, administrations, armies, and “national” leaders.

Any elections held under these circumstances would inevitably entrench the divisions and animosities represented and exacerbated by the 2002 rebellion.

The structural faults which lay at the base of the 2002 rebellion include such inflammable issues as trans-national tensions affecting especially Côte d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso, Ivorian ethnic and religious antagonisms, sharing of political power, and access to economic and social power and opportunities.

In this regard, the international community has assiduously suppressed proper appreciation of various explosive allegations which, rightly or wrongly, have informed and will continue to inform the views of the Gbagbo-supporting population in southern Côte d’Ivoire — and much of Francophone Africa!

These are that Ouattara is a foreigner born in Burkina Faso, that together with Burkinabè President Blaise Compaoré he was responsible for the 2002 rebellion, that his accession to power would result in the takeover of the country especially by Burkinabè foreigners, and that historically, to date, he has been ready to advance French interests in Côte d’Ivoire.

Taking all this into account, the African Union understood that a lasting solution of the Ivorian crisis necessitated a negotiated agreement between the two belligerent Ivorian factions, focused on the interdependent issues of democracy, peace, national reconciliation and unity.

In protracted negotiations from 2002, the Ivorians agreed that the presidential elections would not be held until various conditions had been met. These included the reunification of the country, the restoration of the national administration to all parts of the Ivorian territory, and the disarmament of the rebels and all militia and their integration in the national security machinery, with the latter process completed at least two months ahead of any presidential elections. Despite the fact that none of this was honoured, the presidential elections were allowed to proceed.

In the end, Ouattara has been installed as president of Côte d’Ivoire. Gbagbo, and his wife Simone, have ended up as humiliated prisoners. Many Ivorians have died and have been displaced, much infrastructure has been destroyed, and historic animosities have been exacerbated in the lead up to this outcome.

Many things have gone radically wrong along the road to this result.

Agreements relating to what needed to be done to create conditions for free and fair elections were willfully and contemptuously ignored. The Ivorian Constitutional Council (CC) is the only body constitutionally empowered to determine the winner in any presidential election and to install the president, with the Electoral Commission (IEC) mandated to forward its provisional results to the CC. However, the very people who insist on the sanctity of the rule of law as fundamental to all democratic practice, elected illegally to recognise the provisional result announced by the chairperson of the IEC on his own, as the authentic outcome of the presidential election.

As provided by the law, Gbagbo contested the fairness of the elections in certain parts of the country, especially the north. The CC, rightly or wrongly, accepted the majority of the complaints made by Gbagbo, identified other “irregularities,” annulled the votes in some districts, and declared Gbagbo the victor. The chairperson of the IEC did not take these alleged irregularities into account and decided that Ouattara had won.

The envoy of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, his fellow South Korean, SRSG Young-jin Choi, also determined that Ouattara had won, but on the basis of fewer votes than those announced by the IEC, having determined that some of the complaints made by Gbagbo were legitimate. In terms of the votes cast for the two candidates, the IEC, the CC, and the U.N. SRSG made three different determinations.

Gbagbo proposed that to resolve this matter, which bears on the important issue of the will of the Ivorian people, an international commission should be established to verify the election results, with the important pre-condition that both he and Ouattara should accept the determination of the commission.

This proposal was rejected by the international community — despite the fact that it would have resolved the electoral dispute without resort to war, and despite the fact that some election observers questioned the fairness of the elections, especially in northern Côte d’Ivoire.

For instance, reporting on the elections in the north, the election observer mission of the AU led by Joseph Kokou Kofigoh, former prime minister of Togo, the independent civil society Societé Civile Africaine pour la Democratie et l’Assistance Electoral led by Seynabou Indieguene of Senegal, and the Coordination of African Election Experts (CAEE) from Cameroon, Senegal, Benin, Mali, Morocco, Gabon, and Togo led by Jean-Marie Ongjibangte of Cameroon, all sounded the alarm about the elections in the north.

For instance, the CAEE said: “After sharing information with other national and international election observers, we hereby state that the second round of the presidential elections in Côte d’Ivoire was held amidst major problems in (various northern) regions…

“These problems were stealing of ballot boxes, arresting of candidates’ representatives, multiple voting, refusal to admit international observers to witness counting of ballots, and the murder of representatives of candidates. To that effect, we hereby declare that the second round of voting was not free, fair and transparent in these (northern) localities.”

For its part, to this day, the ECOWAS election observer mission has not issued its report on the second round of the presidential election! Why?

Clearly the independent international commission proposed by Laurent Gbagbo could have been established and empowered to make a definitive and binding determination about what had happened. Time will tell why this was not done!

Further, the U.N. SRSG took the extraordinary decision to exceed his mandate by declaring who had won the presidential election, contrary to his tasks as detailed by the Security Council. This positioned the U.N. Mission in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) as a partisan in the Ivorian conflict, rather than a neutral peacemaker, equidistant from the belligerent parties.

From this point onwards, UNOCI had no choice but actively to work for the installation of Ouattara as president of the country and the removal of Gbagbo. Ultimately, this found expression in the blatant use of its military capacities to open the way for the Forces Nouvelles to defeat the Gbagbo forces and capture Gbagbo, under the shameless pretence that it was acting to protect civilians.

While obliged to respect its peacekeeping mandate, which included keeping the belligerent forces apart, UNOCI did nothing to stop the advance of the Forces Nouvelles from the north to the south, including and up to Abidjan. Nor did UNOCI or the French Licorne forces, as mandated by the United Nations, act to protect civilians in the area of Duékoué, where, evidently, the most concentrated murder of civilians took place! This recalls the United Nations’s failure to end the more catastrophic murder and abuse of civilians in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo!

The Ivorian reality points to a number of incontrovertible conclusions.

The agreed conditions for the holding of democratic elections in Côte d’Ivoire were not created. Despite strong allegations of electoral fraud, the international community decided against conducting any verification of the process and the announced results. This left unanswered the vitally important question of who actually had won the elections, which Ouattara might have done.

The United Nations elected to abandon its neutrality as a peacemaker, deciding to be a partisan belligerent in the Ivorian conflict.

France used its privileged place in the Security Council to position itself to play an important role in determining the future of Côte d’Ivoire, its former colony in which, inter alia, it has significant economic interests. It joined the United Nations to ensure that Ouattara emerged as the victor in the Ivorian conflict.

This addressed the national interests of France, consistent with its Françafrique policies, which aim to perpetuate a particular relationship with its former African colonies. This is in keeping with remarks made by former French President François Mitterand when he said, “Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century,” which former French foreign minister Jacques Godfrain confirmed when he said: “A little country [France], with a small amount of strength, we can move a planet because [of our]…relations with 15 or 20 African countries…”

The AU is also not without blame, as it failed to assert itself to persuade everybody to work to achieve reconciliation among the Ivorians, and therefore durable peace. Tragically, the outcome that has been achieved in Côte d’Ivoire further entrenches the endemic conflict in this country. This is because it has placed in the exclusive hands of the failed rebellion of 2002 the ability to determine the future of the country, whereas the objective situation dictated and dictates that the people of Côte d’Ivoire should engage one another as equals to determine their shared destiny.

During the decade he served as president of Côte d’Ivoire, Gbagbo had no possibility to act on his own to reunify the country and achieve reconciliation among its diverse people, despite the existence of negotiated agreements in this regard. As he serves as president of the country, Ouattara will not succeed to realise these objectives, acting on his own, outside the context of honest agreement with the sections of the Ivorian population represented by Gbagbo.

What was to come was foreseen by the then U.S. ambassador in Côte d’Ivoire, Wanda L. Nesbitt. In July 2009, she advised the U.S. government:

“It now appears that the Ouaga IV agreement, [the fourth agreement to the Ouagadougou Political Agreement which prescribed that disarmament should precede the elections], is fundamentally an agreement between Blaise Compaore [President of Burkina Faso] and Laurent Gbagbo to share control of the north until after the presidential election, despite the fact that the text calls for the Forces Nouvelles to return control of the north to the government and complete disarmament two months before the election…

“But the 5,000 Forces Nouvelles soldiers who are to be “disarmed” and regrouped into barracks in four key cities in the north and west until a new national army is created, represent a serious military capability that the FAFN [Forces Nouvelles] intends to keep well-trained and in reserve until after the election. The hand-over of administrative power from the FAFN to civilian government authorities is a pre-requisite for elections but, as travelers to the north (including Embassy personnel) confirm: the FAFN retain de-facto control of the region especially when it comes to finances.”

The failure to address the “pre-requisite for elections” predetermined their outcome. The rebel “control” of the north, mentioned by Ambassador Nesbitt, prescribed the outcome of the 2010 presidential election. Similarly, it was the “military capability” of the rebellion, which Ambassador Nesbitt mentioned, that was used to ensure that Ouattara became president of Côte d’Ivoire.

It is little wonder that as the post-election crisis deepened, Laurent Gbagbo would cry out: I was betrayed!

At the end of it all, there are many casualties.

One of these is the African Union. The tragic events in Côte d’Ivoire have confirmed the marginalization of the union in its ability to resolve the most important African challenges.

Instead, the AU has asserted the ability of the major powers to intervene to resolve these challenges by using their various capacities to legitimize their actions by persuading the United Nations to authorise their self-serving interventions.

The United Nations is yet another casualty. It has severely undermined its acceptability as a neutral force in the resolution of internal conflicts, such as the one in Côte d’Ivoire. It will now be difficult for the United Nations to convince Africa and the rest of the developing world that it is not a mere instrument in the hands of the world’s major powers. This has confirmed the urgency of the need to restructure the organisation, based on the view that as presently structured the United Nations has no ability to act as a truly democratic representative of its member states.

Thus, in various ways, the events in Côte d’Ivoire could serve as a defining moment in terms of the urgent need to reengineer the system of international relations. They have exposed the reality of the balance and abuse of power in the post-Cold War era, and put paid to the fiction that the major powers respect the rule of law in the conduct of international relations, even as defined by Tthe U.N. Charter, and that, as democrats, they respect the views of the peoples of the world.

We can only hope that Laurent and Simone Gbagbo and the Ivorian people do not continue to suffer as abused and humiliated victims of a global system which, in its interests, while shouting loudly about universal human rights, only seeks to perpetuate the domination of the many by the few who dispose of preponderant political, economic, military and media power.

The perverse and poisonous proceedings that have afflicted Côte d’Ivoire pose the urgent question: How many blatant abuses of power will Africa and the rest of the developing world experience before the vision of a democratic system of global governance is realised?

---

By Thabo Mbeki, former President of South Africa, in Foreign Policy, le 29 avril 2011
THABO MBEKI: Qu’est ce que le monde s’est trompé en Côte d’Ivoire!

Le second tour des élections le 30 novembre 2010, présidentielle en Côte d’Ivoire montés les uns contre deux autres de longue date des opposants politiques, Laurent Gbagbo et Alassane Ouattara. Pour cette raison, et d’une importance stratégique, il était inévitable que ce concours électoral décide de l’avenir à long terme du pays. Toutes les personnes concernées devraient avoir sondé très au sérieux la question critique: Est-ce que les élections de 2010 ont crée les conditions permettant d’établir la base d’un meilleur avenir possible pour le peuple ivoirien?

Ce qui n’a pas été fait.

La communauté internationale a insisté pour que la Côte d’Ivoire mettre fin à la crise et a organiser des élections démocratiques, même si les conditions n’étaient pas réunies pour mener de telles élections. Bien qu’ils savaient que cette proposition était fondamentalement mauvaise, les Ivoiriens ne pouvaient pas résister à la pression internationale à la tenue des élections.

Cependant, la réalité objective est que les élections présidentielle ivoirienne ne devrait pas avoir eu lieu quand ils ont eu lieu. Il était parfaitement prévisible qu’ils ne ferait que renforcer le conflit même, si il a été suggéré qu’elles mettraient fin.

La rébellion de 2002 en Côte d’Ivoire a divisé le pays en deux parties, avec le nord contrôlé par les rebelles des Forces Nouvelles, qui a soutenu Alassane Ouattara, et le sud aux mains du gouvernement dirigé par Laurent Gbagbo. Depuis lors, la Côte d’Ivoire a eu deux gouvernements, les administrations, les armées, et «national» des dirigeants.

Toutes élections tenues dans ces circonstances enracinent inévitablement les divisions et les animosités représentés et aggravée par la rébellion de 2002.

Les défauts de structure qui se trouvait à la base de la rébellion de 2002 comprennent des questions inflammables que les tensions trans-nationales qui touchent en particulier la Côte d’Ivoire et le Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire antagonismes ethniques et religieux, le partage du pouvoir politique, et l’accès au pouvoir économique et sociale et possibilités.

À cet égard, la communauté internationale a assidûment supprimé une juste appréciation des diverses allégations explosives qui, à tort ou à tort, ont informé et continuera d’informer l’opinion de la population Gbagbo d’appui dans le sud de la Côte d’Ivoire – et une grande partie de l’Afrique francophone !

Ce sont que Ouattara est un étranger né au Burkina Faso, qui, avec le Président Blaise Compaoré du Burkina Faso, il a été responsable de la rébellion de 2002, que son accession au pouvoir se traduirait par la prise de contrôle du pays en particulier par des étrangers burkinabè, et que, historiquement, à Jusqu’ici, il a été prête à faire avancer les intérêts français en Côte d’Ivoire.

Prenant en compte tout cela, l’Union africaine entendu qu’une solution durable de la crise ivoirienne a nécessité un accord négocié entre les deux belligérants factions ivoiriennes, porté sur les questions interdépendantes de la démocratie, la paix, la réconciliation et l’unité nationales.

Dans de longues négociations à partir de 2002, les Ivoiriens ont convenu que l’élection présidentielle ne se tiendrait pas avant que les conditions diverses avaient été remplies. Il s’agit notamment de la réunification du pays, la restauration de l’administration nationale à toutes les parties du territoire ivoirien, et le désarmement des rebelles et toutes les milices et leur intégration dans le mécanisme de sécurité nationale, avec le dernier processus terminé au moins deux mois à venir des élections présidentielles. Malgré le fait que rien de tout cela a été honoré, les élections présidentielles ont été autorisés à procéder.

En fin de compte, Ouattara a été installé comme président de la Côte d’Ivoire. Gbagbo, et son épouse Simone, ont fini comme des prisonniers humiliés. Beaucoup d’Ivoiriens sont morts et ont été déplacés, les infrastructures de choses ont été détruites, et les animosités historiques ont été exacerbées à l’approche de ce résultat.

Beaucoup de choses ont disparu radicalement tout le long de la route à ce résultat.

Accords portant sur ​​ce qui devait être fait pour créer les conditions d’élections libres et équitables ont été volontairement et dédaigneusement ignorées. Le Conseil constitutionnel ivoirien (CC) est le seul organisme habilité par la Constitution pour déterminer le vainqueur dans une élection présidentielle et à installer le président, avec la Commission électorale (CEI), chargée de transmettre la résultats provisoires de la CC. Toutefois, ceux-là mêmes qui insistent sur ​​le caractère sacré de la règle de droit fondamental à toute pratique démocratique, élu illégalement de reconnaître le résultat provisoire annoncé par le président de la CEI sur la sienne, comme le résultat authentique de l’élection présidentielle.

Comme prévu par la loi, Gbagbo a contesté la régularité des élections dans certaines parties du pays, surtout dans le nord. Le CC, tort ou à raison, a accepté la majorité des plaintes déposées par Gbagbo, a identifié d’autres irrégularités “, a annulé les votes dans certains districts, et a déclaré Gbagbo vainqueur. Le président de la CEI n’a pas pris ces prétendues irrégularités en compte et a décidé que Ouattara avait gagné.

L’envoyé de l’ONU Le Secrétaire général Ban Ki-moon, à ses collègues sud-coréen, RSSG Young-jin Choi, a également déterminé que Ouattara avait gagné, mais sur la base des moins de voix que celles annoncées par la CEI, après avoir déterminé que certains des plaintes déposées par Gbagbo étaient légitimes. En termes de suffrages exprimés pour les deux candidats, la CEI, le CC, et le Représentant spécial de l’ONU a fait trois mesures différentes.

Gbagbo a proposé que pour résoudre cette question, qui porte sur l’importante question de la volonté du peuple ivoirien, une commission internationale devrait être établie pour vérifier les résultats des élections, avec la condition préalable importante que lui et Ouattara doivent accepter la décision de la commission.

Cette proposition a été rejetée par la communauté internationale – en dépit du fait qu’il aurait réglé le contentieux électoral, sans recourir à la guerre, et malgré le fait que certains observateurs électoraux en doute l’équité des élections, en particulier dans le nord de la Côte d’Ivoire.

Par exemple, les rapports sur les élections dans le Nord, la mission d’observation électorale de l’Union africaine dirigée par Joseph Kokou Kofigoh, ancien Premier ministre du Togo, indépendant de la société civile Société Civile Africaine pour la Démocratie et l’assistance électorale dirigée par Seynabou Indieguene de Sénégal, et la coordination des experts électoraux en Afrique (CAEE) du Cameroun, Sénégal, Bénin, Mali, Maroc, Gabon, Togo et dirigée par Jean-Marie Ongjibangte du Cameroun, tous les sonné l’alarme au sujet des élections dans le Nord.

Par exemple, le CAEE a déclaré: «Après le partage d’informations avec d’autres observateurs électoraux nationaux et internationaux, nous vous informons que le second tour de l’élection présidentielle en Côte d’Ivoire a eu lieu au milieu des problèmes majeurs dans (différents du Nord) les régions …

” Des urnes ont été volé, l’arrestation des représentants des candidats, le vote multiple, le refus d’admettre des observateurs internationaux pour assister comptage des bulletins de vote, et l’assassiner des représentants des candidats. A cet effet, nous déclarons que le second tour de scrutin n’a pas été libres, justes et transparentes dans ces localités (nord). ”

Pour sa part, à ce jour, la mission d’observation électorale de la CEDEAO n’a pas publié son rapport sur le deuxième tour de l’élection présidentielle! Pourquoi?

Clair que la Commission internationale indépendante proposée par Laurent Gbagbo aurait pu être établie et habilitée à prendre une décision définitive et contraignante sur ce qui s’était passé. Le temps nous dira pourquoi il n’a pas été fait!

En outre, le Représentant spécial de l’ONU a pris la décision extraordinaire de dépasser son mandat en déclarant qui avait remporté l’élection présidentielle, contrairement à ses tâches comme indiqué par le Conseil de sécurité. Cette position de la Mission des Nations Unies en Côte d’Ivoire (ONUCI) en tant que partisan dans le conflit ivoirien, plutôt que d’un artisan de la paix neutre, à égale distance des parties belligérantes.

A partir de ce point, l’ONUCI avait pas d’autre choix que de travailler activement pour l’installation de Ouattara en tant que président du pays et la suppression de Gbagbo. En fin de compte, cette expression dans l’utilisation flagrante de ses capacités militaires pour ouvrir la voie pour les Forces nouvelles pour vaincre les forces de Gbagbo et la capture Gbagbo, sous le prétexte sans vergogne qu’il a agi pour protéger les civils.

Bien que l’obligation de respecter son mandat maintien de la paix, qui consistait à maintenir les forces belligérantes à part, l’ONUCI n’a rien fait pour arrêter l’avance des Forces Nouvelles à partir du nord au sud, y compris et jusqu’à Abidjan. N’a pas non plus l’ONUCI ou des forces françaises Licorne, tel que mandaté par les Nations Unies, d’agir pour protéger les civils dans la région de Duékoué, où, évidemment, l’assassiner la plus concentrée de civils ont eu lieu! Cela rappelle l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’incapacité à mettre fin le plus catastrophique assassiner et d’abus de civils dans l’est de la République démocratique du Congo!

Les points de la réalité ivoirienne à un certain nombre de conclusions irréfutables.

Les conditions convenues pour la tenue d’élections démocratiques en Côte d’Ivoire n’ont pas été créés. Malgré les allégations de fraude électorale forte, la communauté internationale a décidé de ne mener aucune vérification du processus et les résultats annoncés. Cela a laissé sans réponse la question d’une importance vitale de la réalité qui a gagné les élections, qui Ouattara aurait pu le faire.

L’Organisation des Nations Unies a décidé d’abandonner sa neutralité en tant que conciliateur, de décider d’être un belligérant partisane dans le conflit ivoirien.

La France a utilisé sa place privilégiée au sein du Conseil de sécurité de se positionner pour jouer un rôle important dans la détermination de l’avenir de la Côte d’Ivoire, son ancienne colonie dans laquelle, entre autres, il a d’importants intérêts économiques. Il a rejoint l’Organisation des Nations Unies à veiller à ce que Ouattara a émergé en tant que vainqueur dans le conflit ivoirien.

Cette initiative répond à des intérêts nationaux de la France, conformément à ses politiques Françafriques , qui visent à perpétuer une relation particulière avec ses anciennes colonies africaines. Cela est conforme aux observations faites par l’ancien président français François Mitterrand, quand il dit: «Sans l’Afrique, la France n’aura pas l’histoire au 21e siècle», dont l’ancien ministre des Affaires étrangères français Jacques Godfrain a confirmé quand il a dit: “Un petit pays [France ], avec une petite quantité de force, nous pouvons nous déplacer d’une planète à cause [de nos] … les relations avec 15 ou 20 pays d’Afrique … ”

L’UA n’est pas non plus sans reproche, car il n’a pas à s’affirmer pour convaincre tout le monde à travailler pour parvenir à la réconciliation entre les Ivoiriens, et donc de paix durable. Malheureusement, les résultats qui ont été réalisés en Côte d’Ivoire consacre en outre le conflit endémique dans ce pays. C’est parce qu’il a placé dans les mains exclusives de la rébellion de 2002 n’a pas la capacité de déterminer l’avenir du pays, alors que la situation objective dictée et exige que le peuple de Côte d’Ivoire devrait engager les uns les autres comme des égaux afin de déterminer leur destinée commune.

Au cours de la décennie, il a été président de la Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo avait aucune possibilité d’agir de son propre chef pour réunifier le pays et réaliser la réconciliation entre ses diverses populations, malgré l’existence d’accords négociés à cet égard. Comme il sert en tant que président du pays, Ouattara ne réussira pas à réaliser ces objectifs, agissant en son propre, en dehors du contexte de l’accord honnête avec les sections de la population ivoirienne représentée par Gbagbo.

Ce qui était à venir a été prévu par l’ambassadeur des États-Unis puis en Côte d’Ivoire, Wanda L. Nesbitt. En Juillet 2009, elle a informé le gouvernement des États-Unis:

“Il semble maintenant que l’accord de Ouaga IV, [le quatrième accord de l'accord politique de Ouagadougou, qui prescrit que le désarmement doit précéder les élections], est fondamentalement un accord entre Blaise Compaoré [Président du Burkina Faso] et Laurent Gbagbo à partager le contrôle du vers le nord jusqu’à après l’élection présidentielle, en dépit du fait que le texte appelle les Forces Nouvelles à reprendre le contrôle du nord au désarmement complet du gouvernement et deux mois avant les élections …

“Mais les 5.000 soldats des Forces Nouvelles qui doivent être« désarmé », et regroupés dans des casernes dans quatre grandes villes dans le nord et l’ouest jusqu’à ce qu’une nouvelle armée nationale est créée, représentent une capacité militaire sérieuse que les FAFN [Forces Nouvelles] a l’intention de garder bien formés et en réserve qu’après l’élection est. La remise du pouvoir administratif des FAFN gouvernement civil aux autorités un pré-requis pour les élections , mais, comme les voyageurs vers le nord (y compris le personnel des ambassades) confirment: les FAFN conserver de contrôle de facto de la région en particulier quand il s’agit de finances. ”

L’incapacité à résoudre les “pré-requis pour les élections” prédéterminée leurs résultats. Les rebelles de «contrôle» du Nord, cité par l’Ambassadeur Nesbitt, prescrite par le résultat de l’élection présidentielle de 2010. De même, il a été le “capacités militaires” de la rébellion, dont l’Ambassadeur Nesbitt mentionné, qui a été utilisé pour s’assurer que Ouattara est devenu président de la Côte d’Ivoire.

Il n’est pas étonnant que la crise post-électorale approfondi, Laurent Gbagbo criait: j’ai été trahi!

À la fin de tout cela, il ya de nombreuses victimes.

Un d’entre eux est l’Union africaine. Les événements tragiques en Côte d’Ivoire ont confirmé la marginalisation de l’union dans sa capacité à résoudre les défis les plus importants d’Afrique.

Au lieu de cela, l’UA a affirmé la capacité des grandes puissances d’intervenir pour résoudre ces problèmes à l’aide de leurs capacités différentes pour légitimer leurs actions en persuadant l’Organisation des Nations Unies d’autoriser leurs interventions égoïstes.

L’ONU a gravement compromis son acceptabilité comme une force neutre dans la résolution des conflits internes, comme celui en Côte d’Ivoire. Il sera désormais difficile pour l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour convaincre l’Afrique et le reste du monde en développement que ce n’est pas un simple instrument entre les mains des grandes puissances du monde. Cela a confirmé l’urgence de la nécessité de restructurer l’organisation, basée sur l’idée que dans sa structure actuelle des Nations Unies n’a pas la capacité d’agir en tant que représentant véritablement démocratique de ses Etats membres.

Ainsi, de diverses manières, les événements en Côte d’Ivoire pourraient servir à un moment déterminant en termes de l’urgente nécessité de restructurer le système des relations internationales. Ils ont mis en évidence la réalité de l’équilibre et l’abus de pouvoir dans la prériode post-électorale, et mis fin à la fiction que les grandes puissances respectent la primauté du droit dans la conduite des relations internationales, même tel que défini par la Charte des Nations Unies, et que, en tant que démocrates, ils respectent les opinions des peuples du monde.

Nous ne pouvons qu’espérer que Laurent et Simone Gbagbo et le peuple ivoirien ne continuent pas à souffrir victimes maltraités et humiliés d’un système mondial qui, dans son intérêt, tout en criant haut et fort sur les droits universels de l’homme, ne cherche qu’à perpétuer la domination du plus grand nombre par quelques-uns qui disposent du pouvoir politique, économique, militaire et médiatique prépondérante.

Vue les procédures perverses et toxiques qui ont frappé la Côte d’Ivoire, on peut se poser la question d’urgence: Combien de violations flagrantes du pouvoir que l’Afrique et le reste de l’expérience des pays en développement seront victimes avant que la vision d’un système démocratique de la gouvernance mondiale soit réalisée?

THABO MBEKI (former President of South Africa)

Backed by French and United Nations military forces, and approved by President Barack Obama, Muslim militias loyal to opposition leader Alassane Ouattara are on a rampage in the Ivory Coast that, according to news reports and officials, has left over a thousand Christians dead so far in an effort to oust current President Laurent Gbagbo.

Though conflicts have been a regular occurrence in recent decades, the current civil war engulfing the West-African former French colony stems from a contested presidential election held in November. The original vote count indicated a narrow victory for Ouattara, a U.S.-educated Muslim from the largely Islamic Northern part of the country who has worked at the International Monetary Fund and the Central Bank of West African States.

But after the nation’s Constitutional Council discovered evidence of alleged voting fraud and ballot stuffing, it nullified the results, re-counted the votes, and declared Gbagbo the winner. Gbagbo, who has ruled the Ivory Coast since 2000, is a leftist Catholic from the largely Christian Southern part of the country. He is claiming to be the legitimately elected President and is refusing to leave power.

The UN, Obama, and the French government, however, maintain that Gbagbo should step down and allow Ouattara to assume the presidency. And at least the French and the UN are using armed force to make sure that happens, providing military support to Islamic militias loyal to Ouattara while bombing the Ivory Coast’s soldiers and equipment from the air.

Reports of brutal massacres have been pouring out of the country, intensifying in recent days as the struggle becomes more violent. One of the most barbarous attacks left around 1,000 civilians dead in Duékoué at the hands of Ouattara supporters as they advanced on the capital. Even Ouattara’s international supporters blasted the slaughter.

The victims, members of a pro-Gbagbo Christian tribe, were reportedly fleeing their homes to a nearby Catholic mission. But according to news reports, they were mowed down or hacked to death with machetes shortly before arriving at the compound.

« I can’t go home, the rebels have guns. I don’t have a gun, » 25-year-old refugee Djeke Fulgence told the U.K. Guardian from a camp across the border, where he fled with his wife and children. « They kill people and rape women. They can kill children and then they take the small children to go and fight. It’s impossible. I can’t go back. »

Over 30,000 civilians are estimated to be taking refuge at the mission to escape the violence. But reports indicate that food and water supplies are running low. Meanwhile, up to a million refugees have reportedly fled their homes, with an estimated hundred thousand crossing the border into Liberia.

As both sides blame each other for human-rights abuses, even the UN has now jumped in and urged Ouattara’s forces to show “restraint” after reports of looting, abductions, and ill-treatment of civilians by his supporters went public. Talk of prosecuting those responsible for the atrocities at the International Criminal Court is already making headlines.

But as the UN helicopters were bombarding Gbagbo forces earlier this week, critics of the international body’s military support for Ouattara blasted the campaign. The Russian government, for example, said the UN and the French government had no right to intervene on one side in the dispute.

“The UN peacekeepers and supporting French forces in Ivory Coast have started military action taking the side of Ouattara, carrying out air strikes on the positions held by supporters of Gbagbo. We’re now looking into the legality of this situation because the peacekeepers were authorized to remain neutral — nothing more,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. “An emergency briefing in the UN Security Council has been held upon our request, but we have not received any concrete answers. We will keep looking into the matter.”

In the United States, conservative critics of the international intervention have also attacked efforts to oust Gbagbo. World Net Daily described the situation as “the forced Islamist takeover of [the Ivory Coast] government.” It also noted that UN and U.S. government leaders were “ignoring the nation’s own procedures that determined Laurent Gbagbo, a Christian, legitimately was re-elected president.”

WND also compared the situation to another recent “Muslim-Christian battle” in Africa. In 2007, Obama backed Kenyan Muslim Raila Odinga, a socialist currently serving as Prime Minister following a power-sharing agreement. After Odinga lost the election and accused his opponent of rigging the vote, his Islamic supporters went on a rampage that included burning churches, hacking more than a thousand Christians to death with machetes, and eventually displacing an estimated 500,000 people. To placate the rioters, an agreement eventually allowed Odinga to serve as Prime Minster.

In another recent foreign dispute, Obama backed socialist Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya. The leftist Hugo Chavez ally was lawfully removed from office through established constitutional procedures for violating the law. But Obama demanded that he be reinstated.

In the Ivory Coast conflict, like in the Kenya dispute, Obama also expressed support for the Muslim candidate. And despite the Ivory Coast Constitutional Council’s ruling, which is supposed to be the final word on election results, Obama demanded that Gbagbo leave power.

« Tragically, the violence that we are seeing could have been averted had Laurent Gbagbo respected the results of last year’s presidential election, » Obama said on April 5, without mentioning the Constitutional Council’s ruling. « To end this violence and prevent more bloodshed, former President Gbagbo must stand down immediately, and direct those who are fighting on his behalf to lay down their arms.”

But despite the administration’s declared support for Ouattara, prominent U.S. lawmakers blasted the international intervention and criticized Obama’s choice of sides. In an interview with the U.S. government-funded Voice of America news service, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma said it was clear that Ouattara was chosen by the French government and that “quite frankly, they rigged the election.” Inhofe also said the original election results purportedly showing that Ouattara won were statistically impossible.

Citing the massacre in Duékoué, Sen. Inhofe called the situation “a reign of terror by Ouattara” that was being “supported by the French.” He also said the Obama administration “had it wrong” and that letters he had sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the matter were ignored.

Inhofe accused the UN of violating its charter, too. “They went in and immediately assumed that it was a legitimate election and, yet, we have all the evidence to the contrary,” he told VOA. “By the way, there are a lot of people in Africa who agree with me.”

News reports indicate that Gbagbo will probably be forced to surrender soon. By April 6 media accounts claimed he was holed up in a bunker as some government forces were starting to lay down their weapons. The French government said it was only a matter of time.

« This stubbornness is absurd. Gbagbo has no other solution anymore. Everybody has dropped him, » said French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe. « He is holed up in the bunker in his residence so we will continue with the United Nations, which is handling that, to put pressure on him so he accepts to acknowledge the reality: There is only one legal and legitimate president today, it is Alassane Ouattara and I hope that persuasion will win and that we will avoid having to resume the military operations. »

French forces were reportedly attacking the presidential palace as Ouattara’s militias were said to be in control most of the nation and its capital. Other reports indicated that Gbagbo was already negotiating the terms of his surrender after foreign military forces decimated his government’s ability to hold out any longer.

Analysts noted, however, that the underlying conflict would not end with Ouattara’s rise to power. Tensions have been running high in the Ivory Coast for years, especially after another civil war about a decade ago left the nation divided between Muslims to the North and Christians in the South.

Source : thenewamerican.com

By
admin
2 avril 2011Posted in: A Savoir, ENGLISH ARTICLES, Le terrorisme de Sarkozy

The French army (Force Licorne) bombarded with since last night and today with heavy artillery the Camp AGBAN until 6h AM in Abidjan. The Ivorian army has regained control of the two bridges and is trying to contain the advancing of the French forces. The French army has indeed joined in full force the war that Nicolas Sarkozy and the famous “international community” impose on the people of Côte d’Ivoire, on the grounds that his Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, elected democratically, refuses to give up at a vile cost of the natural ressources and raw materials of his country.

Source : TWN / ivoirian.net

Current News, Human Rights, Peace Solutions
Feb 282011

U.N. envoy Choi Young lies to the Press telling them Ouatarra won the election.
TWN-New York-USA.02/25.2001. This Web Site has stated it and repeated it: For two months, our correspondents, eyewitnesses of the actions taken by UN forces in Cote d’Ivoire, keep describing realities on the ground. It is now in broad daylight that those forces (The United Nations) have decided to take an active part in the war against the Ivoirians.

Yes, we continue to insist that United Nations officials spend most of their time lying to the international community by claiming that it is their soldiers who are being attacked in Abidjan. Anybody in this West African nation can testify with evidence that the UN soldiers train, offer weapons and carry the rebels by helicopter to the neighborhood of Abidjan in order to fight the regular army.

Yes, we saw UN soldiers helping rebels; we see them every day shooting at civilians who do not want them any more in Abidjan because of their proven support for OUATTARA rebels. The UN is finally at war, a war it has carefully prepared so they can stay longer in that country and enjoy exorbitant salaries executives would never get in their offices in New York or in their own country.

To avoid the AU final decisions which will surely confuse them, they purely and simply opted for war. Even if the UN leaders “call different parties to calm”, we are saying, we are repeating and we are insisting that the UN is the main responsible of all of the mess created in Côte d’Ivoire. “What parties are they talking about when CHOI, BAN KI-MOON and his army are the most harmful party in this crisis” exclaimed a Nigerian diplomat yesterday in New York. Very outraged by this mess mounted fully by “these corrupt people”, this top Nigerian official argues forcefully that “this crisis will stop if the UN army leaves the country. One of the camps is relying on the UN to launch insurgent appeals every day”. Asked about the position of his country which called for military intervention in Côte d’Ivoire, he has been very straight: “BAN KI-MOON and SARKOZY wanted to use our President (Editor’s Note: Jonathan GOODLUCK) to hide their failure in the resolution of this crisis, we found it out and since then, our position has changed. “Therefore, we now require a go-ahead from the United Nations prior to waging a war against someone who is not a warlord as Africa has had in the past; to kill people who did nothing but obeying the laws of their country. “It would be a grand premiere in the history of the world and we wonder how they will write this resolution”. This worthy son of Africa did not leave us without notifying the international community. “Shame will lead BAN KI-MOON to ignite this country to say later that it is the refusal of GBAGBO to cede the power that brought this chaos”. The world is alerted.

Jack SARKORACCHI

---

Cote d’ Ivoire, l’ONU Enter Finalement En Guerre Contre Le Peuple Ivoirien

TWN-New York-USA.02/25.2001.Votre site aux informations vraies l’avait dit et redit. Depuis deux mois, nos correspondents, témoins occulaires des actes posés par les militaires de l’ ONU rendent compte des réalités du terrain. C’est désormais en plein jour que les soldats de l’ONU ont décidé de prendre une part active dans la guerre contre les ivoiriens.

Oui, nous continuons d’insister sur les agissements des responsables de l’institution mondiale qui passent le plus clair de leur temps à mentir à la communauté internationale en prétendant que ce sont leurs soldats qui sont attaqués à Abidjan. Tout le monde peut témoigner dans ce pays, preuves à l’appui que c’est l’ ONU qui entraine, arme et transporte les rebelles par hélicopters pour les déverser dans les quartiers d’Abidjan afin de faire la guerre à l’armée régulière.

Oui, nous avons vu les militaires de l’ONU prêter main forte aux rebelles, nous les voyons chaque jour tirer sur des civils qui ne veulent plus d’eux à Abidjan à cause de leurs soutiens avérés aux rebelles de OUATTARA. L’ONU est donc finalement entrée en guerre, une guerre qu’ elle a soigneusement préparé afin de s’éterniser dans ce pays et continuer de profiter de salaires exorbitants que ses dirigeants n’auraient jamais gagné dans leurs bureaux feutrés de New York ou dans leurs pays d’origine.

Ne voulant pas attendre les décisions de l’UA qui va sûrement les confondre, ils ont purement et simplement opté pour la guerre. Nous le disons, nous le repetons et nous insistons, c’ est l’ONU qui est à la base de toute la pagaille créée en Côte d’ Ivoire même si pour distraire les gens ses dirigeants ”appellent les différentes parties à la retenue” . “De quelle parties parlent ils quand CHOI, BAN KI-MOON et leur armée constituent la partie la plus nocive dans cette crise” s’est écrié hier un diplomate Nigerian à New York .Très remonté contre cette pagaille montée de toutes pièces par “ces corrompus”, ce haut cadre Nigérian soutient avec force que “cette crise ne s’arrêtera que si l’armée onusienne quitte ce pays, c’est sur elle que compte un camp pour lancer des mots d’odre insurrectionnels”. Interrogé sur la position de son pays qui appelait à une intervention militaire en Côte d’Ivoire, il est sans détour: “BAN KIMOON et SARKOZY ont voulu se servir de notre Président (Ndlr: Jonathan GOODLUCK) pour masquer leur échec dans la résolution de cette crise, nous l’avons décelé et notre position a évolué. C’est pourquoi, nous exigeons désormais un feu vert de l’ONU avant d’aller mener une guerre contre quelqu’un qui n’est pas un Seigneur de guerre comme l’Afrique en a connu; pour aller tuer des gens qui n’ont fait qu’obéir aux lois de leur pays. Ce serait une grande première dans l’histoire du monde et nous nous demandons comment ils écriront cette résolution”. Ce digne fils d’Afrique ne nous laissera pas sans prévenir la communauté internationale. ” La honte va conduire BAN KIMOON à embraser ce pays pour dire après que c’est le refus de Gbagbo de céder le pouvoir qui a entrainé ce chaos”…. Le monde entier est averti.

Jack SARKORACCHI

Gary K. Bush in ocnus.net le 23 mars 2011

Par Mahalia Nteby – Publié dans : Politique africaine

On Tuesday 22 March 2011 the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, took time off from fulminating about the ‘no-fly zone’ in Libya to warn President Mugabe that he should beware the tide of revolution sweeping down from North Africa. The clear implication was that since the European ex-colonial powers were able to get the UN Security Council to back their policies that Mugabe and, presumably, Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast would become fair game for the exercise of their military might and that the ‘international community’ could impose a new government in any country it chose by virtue of how the ‘international community’ viewed the benevolence of that government’s rule.

In short, the ex-colonial powers assert they have the right to determine who governs whom in Africa, irrespective of the African constitutions, elections and sovereignty. This has always been the position of France and Chirac and Sarkozy but it is a rare statement by the British who couched their language more carefully. It didn’t stop them from sending troops to post-colonial Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone, among others, to ‘restore order’, but they withheld from making such a baldly outrageous assertion before.

This series of crises in North Africa and parts of the Middle East have broken the restraints on their megalomaniacal grasping for power and influence and allowed them to pretend that they know what is best for everyone and that they have a deep-seated commitment to democracy, fair play and human rights; except in those countries which have oil or are good customers for their weapons industries. This is part of a long tradition which followed directly from the colonial ethos.

Despite the seizure of power by Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front from British colonialism and its Unilateral Declaration of Independence the British did nothing to impede the Rhodies in their creation of a breakaway state. They didn’t act because they were the “kith and kin” of the Rhodies. That is, they were white. This didn’t impede the British from brutalising the Kikuyu in Kenya who weren’t white. There are few who argued then or can argue now that the Rhodesian Front was acting to support the human rights and dignity of the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia. They were acting for the white population in Southern Rhodesia and imposed a form of junior apartheid on the African population. The British Government refused to act. Now that Southern Rhodesia is Zimbabwe and run by elected African leaders operating under a Constitution they feel they do have the right to intervene and change the government. The Zims aren’t kith and kin; they are Black. What sheer hypocrisy and self-delusion.

This has always been the posture of the French. Its actions over the years in Ivory Coast are a good example of the lure of neo-colonialism. The long period of political dominance of Felix Houphouet-Boigny was a period of accommodation to the will of France. It was a colony in all but a name. It had a flag, a national anthem and a seat in the UN, but otherwise was operated as if colonialism had never ended. At the death of Houphouet-Boigny the French did all they could to hold the system together but Bedie wasn’t strong enough to do so. Moreover, Bedie attacked the immigrants from the neighbouring countries as intruders and established the notion of ‘Ivoirite”, a local form of xenophobia. As they were primarily Muslims from Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali this added the dimension of an ‘oppressed minority’ to the equation. The brief military takeover of Guei led to the first election in which the candidate of the Ivoirian masses was elected to office; the university lecturer and trades unionist Laurent Gbagbo and his politically-active wife Simone Ehivet. They began to question the strict controls that the French had maintained over the country and the monopoly positions granted to French corporations. The French found this odious and, having warned Gbagbo and offered him large rewards to change his policies, they vowed to oust him from power. They enlisted the help of a Burkinabe immigrant, Alassane Ouattara, who had been brought in to assist with the economic planning by Houphouet-Boigny. Ouattara rested his claim to power on his affiliation with the Muslim migrants and the Muslim northerners. They lost at the ballot box and staged an attempted coup when Gbagbo left for a meeting with the Pope.

This rebellion quickly faltered and was in danger of being wiped out in Bouake and Korhogo by loyalist forces when the French landed paratroopers to protect them. This effectively split the country between North and South. Despite periodic attempts at coups by the North against Gbagbo, the Gbagbo government remained in power. The ‘international community’ (that is France and its friends) insisted on power sharing and a range of other demands on the Government of the Ivory Coast. In a range of treaties between the rebels and the government (Linas-Marcoussis, Accra, Pretoria, Ouagadougou) the key demand on the rebels which they signed up to was that they disarm so that elections could take place. They never disarmed. When the recent election took place, despite the lack of disarmament, the rebel soldiers surrounded the voting places in the North and rigged the ballot boxes. The representative of Ouattara announced unofficially that Ouattara had won the election. The Constitutional Court which was charge under the Constitution said that Gbagbo had won.

This same ‘international community’ took the French lead and recognised Ouattara as the President of the country despite the constitution. The people had elected Gbagbo and he refused to leave office. That has meant that the United Nations forces which worked with the French soldiers in Ivory Coast have armed the rebels and conducted warfare against Gbagbo and his troops. They imposed sanctions against the Ivory Coast and have allowed violence to take place against the populations in areas they and the rebels control.

Gbagbo and his government are not leaving. President Sarkozy ordered Gbagbo to leave the country within forty-eight hours. The Ivory Coast demanded that the French leave and to take their UN thugs with them. This has not yet been resolved. The UN force, the UNOCI have armed the rebels, given them N uniforms and supported them in their rampage against the civil population. They are trying to create a situation in which Gbagbo’s troops rise to the bait and retaliate. Then they can weep their crocodile tears about the attacks on human rights and demand military intervention. The UNOCI just sacked its commander, the Bangladeshi General Hafiz who said it was not the job of the UNOCI to kill Ivoirian citizens. He has been replaced by the genocidal Général Gankoudé Berena of Togo who is famous for his role in the Rwanda genocide where he commanded a brigade; in Guinea-Bissau where he supervised a bloodbath; and at home in Togo where he killed scores of students in the Bay of Lome. This is the kind of peacekeeping the UN has set up in the Ivory Coast.

The UN threatens to attack Gbagbo and to oust him but has no mandate to do it on their own. They are relying on using military forces from other African countries. Until now the other African countries have shown more sense and refused to do so.

The French have ben he main force behind this attack on Gbagbo since 2000. It has backfired badly on them. French business leaders are complaining to Sarkozy that their businesses in the country are being ruined. Their banks have been taken over and they will lose their cocoa by the end of March. Sarkozy promised them that he would oust Gbagbo within a week. This is clearly unlikely to happen. Moreover the French don’t dare attack Gbagbo themselves as there are over fourteen thousand French nationals in the country who are, effectively hostages to French behaviour.

This self-destructive behaviour was equally true in Libya. France’s biggest corporations are concerned about President Nicolas Sarkozy’s gung-ho approach concerning Libya: he was the first to recognize the Libyan insurgent leadership and to call for a no-fly zone over the country. Some groups like Total and Alstom are worried about their assets in the country and their local employees while others fear the Libyan regime could publish documents concerning on-going negotiations. A few months ago Dassault Aviation was still deep in talks to sell Rafale fighters to Tripoli, aircraft that Libya wanted to be equipped with Scalp cruise missile and Exocet AM 39 missiles. Suez was keen on landing a water supply contract for Tripoli and Benghazi. Its adviser in Libya was Tunisia’s Slah Knifen who is close to Saif El Islam Gaddhafi and also acts as EADS’ adviser in Libya. Sarkozy has screwed up French business in both countries.

Why are the French, and to a large degree the British, so caught up in this benighted endeavour? The answer is that they are desperate. France’s economy is smaller than that of California; Britain’s is smaller than Texas. They are in desperate financial straits and growing poorer and deeper in debt every year. As they grow poorer and weaker Africa is growing and expanding at a marvellous rate.. Over the last six years the French have been losing their power in Africa, They are not in the same economic league as the Chinese, Russian and US corporations. They can’t afford to support the economic basket cases of Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, and the Central African Republic. The Ivory Coast has oil, gas, cocoa, coffee, cotton and timber. It is a rich country and the French are being frozen out. It is too late to get their dominant position back. France has already lost and only the hope of installing Ouattara may allow them to get back in, even a little bit. That is what the battle in the Ivory Coast is about.

Africa is going through boom time. Its economies are among the fastest growing in the world. The rates of growth of many African economies are multiples of European growth rates. African stock markets are expanding. In 1989 there were five African stock exchanges. Now there are twenty, including two regional exchanges. African banks are spreading across the world. The insatiable markets for commodities in China and India have opened new doors for African business. There is a rapid and spreading prosperity in Africa and very little of any of this has to do with France or Europe in general. The Ivory Coast doesn’t have to sell its cocoa to Europe; Asia is happy to take it along with the oil. The sun has already started its descent on Europe and there is no way for them to change this. Africa has a wonderful future and is on the cusp of great prosperity. Fortunately, their former colonial masters can only stare and grimace in envy as Africa becomes integrated into the global economy and moves on to become an economic powerhouse as they fade and wither. Their threats of violence and intervention are primitive and demeaning.

Jan 082011

I have been waiting for the military intervention which African leaders, especially, those of the ECOWAS region pledged, as the only alternative to remove Laurent Gbagbo from office. The reason I am on the lookout for this intervention is to justify my long held belief that our leaders in Africa are simply, strings tied to the aprons of some western powers. For me, nothing is as ridiculous as the military option proposed by AU and ECOWAS leaders. Somehow, those fellows who sit at AU and ECOWAS meetings are confirming to us that they are blind to the realities of sovereignty.

Ivory Coast is sovereign and the sovereignty rests in whomsoever Ivoirians decide to submit their will. Today, we are being made to see Gbagbo as a sit-tight. Of course he is, having put in more than 10 years in the leadership of the country. But we have refused, or even become deaf, to the demands and desires of the majority of the Ivoirian people. AU and ECOWAS leaders must, before deploying their soldiers to die on Ivoirian fields, first ask to find out what exactly the people of that country want. They must not fall into the trap of becoming pawns on the chessboard of France, America and the United Nations who are battling to sustain their annexation of an impoverished Ivory Coast.

The basic reason I think the AU and ECOWAS leaders’ proposal of military intervention in Ivory Coast is ridiculous is the fact that Africa has been living and tolerating Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. I recall that soon after Charles Taylor was forced into exile in Nigeria on the platform of NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), which some people christened Never Expect Peace And Development, a move was made to ease Mugabe out of office. That move was anchored by NEPAD through its peer review mechanism. The proposal was such that Mugabe had become an embarrassment to Africa and for the West to be assured of its interest in Zimbabwe and the aligning nations; Mugabe must be eased out of office.

Some of the details of the proposal were a plan to get Mugabe to introduce an ally, his boy more or less; to AU leaders whose task it would be to market him to the West as suitable replacement. It was then proposed that after a successful marketing tour of America, Europe, Asia and other parts of the world, an election would be arranged in which the Mugabe surrogate would be announced winner and power transferred to him. What happens to Mugabe afterwards would be part of the comic drama. AU leaders had proposed that Mugabe can comfortably go into exile in South Africa or Nigeria and his loot would be transferred to him while his domestic interests would be secured by the new president. The proposal given to Mugabe was such that he could still be president from exile while a new face sits in office.

Interestingly, this proposal was made to Mugabe while Taylor was still “enjoying” his exile in Calabar. However, the same African leaders who accused Mugabe of over staying his welcome as president of a sovereign country, and had successfully removed Taylor in what was more like a coup, were themselves plotting to extend their own tenure. Our own Olusegun Obasanjo, was an integral part of the AU proposal and as a NEPAD advocate, made sure Taylor was removed as President of Liberia at a time he was busy plotting a tenure extension. It was later disclosed that the proposal to Mugabe failed because the Zimbabwean leader saw that those who had sent him a plan to ease him out of office were busy plotting tenure extensions for themselves. He also saw that Taylor, who was removed on mutual agreement, had been handed over to the US for punishment. So, it would have been foolish for him to accept to lose his grip on power and go the way of Taylor.

Today, Mugabe is still president in Zimbabwe and those pontifications by AU leaders have come to nothing.

Among AU leaders who pursued the NEPAD cause included Boutefilka of Algeria, Wade of Senegal, Mubarak of Egypt, Obasanjo of Nigeria and Kuffour of Ghana. While Obasanjo lost out to popular will, and Kuffour was voted out at the end of his tenure, those other leaders have been working the constitutions of their various countries to give them longer hold on power. So, why haven’t AU leaders intervened in Algeria, Egypt and Senegal? I am sure that if Obasanjo had his way, he would still be in power till date. Atiku had made detailed expose on why Obasanjo plotted a third term. He had said Obasanjo was not comfortable with the prospect of leaving office when those he left while handing over in 1979 were still there when he came back 20 years later. No denials from Obasanjo yet. In essence, for most parts of Africa, constant regime change does not bode well.

It is unAfrican to foist a western surrogate on a people.

I agree that democracy is about the will of the people expressed in ballot, even when an absolute and an irredeemable idiot gets it. But I think there comes a time when a people decide on the type of leadership that best suits their existential situation. Yes, democracy is good, but certainly, it is unAfrican to foist a western surrogate on a people. In Ivory Coast, democracy has been expressed as the will of France and some western corporatocracy forcefully expressed through allies. I do not think what is happening there at the moment is about an African state. To my mind, it is about western influence and pressure being expressed through AU and ECOWAS leaders, who in themselves will cry foul if the opposition wins in elections in their country. If AU leaders are not being hypocritical, why, for instance, would the Egyptian government not allow the Muslim Brotherhood, a free participation in a general election? Why would Sudan not freely walk into a referendum to decide the fate of Southern Sudan? Why would Wade in Senegal seek constitutional amendment for yet another tenure? And why, also, would the PDP in Nigeria not sincerely and openly honour its own constitutional provision on power rotation in the party?

Let us face the fact. None of these self-serving AU and ECOWAS leaders will willfully quit office if they find themselves in Gbagbo’s shoes. Between the two gentlemen in Ivory Coast, we find a situation where no one is asking the people, for whom power is being exercised, exactly what they want. The concern seems to be more of what France, IMF and World Bank wants. Between IMF and World Bank, you have a corporatocracy that determines who becomes president, when and how, in an African or developing country.

The same international community that backed and defended the fraudulent presidential elections in Afghanistan in which Hamid Karzai clearly lost.

Alassane Quatarra’s background revolves around the IMF and World Bank and the determination to make sure he rules Ivory Coast should, in my mind, be x-rayed against his call for general civil disobedience in Ivory Coast which was largely ignored. But the same people trooped into the streets to demonstrate in support of Gbagbo and against the dictates of France in their country. This, in itself, ought to send some signals to the international community and the United Nations. This is the same international community that backed and defended the fraudulent presidential elections in Afghanistan in which Hamid Karzai clearly lost.

A civil war will cause a massive outflow of refugees into neighboring West African states.

I therefore think that to solve the Ivorian conundrum, those super powers beating the drums of another civil war, including AU and ECOWAS leaders must think less of a military action and seek a better study and understanding of the situation in that country. I know that Nigeria, for instance, will bear the brunt of military intervention for which a resistance by the Ivorian military is certain. Such resistance will surely lead to another civil war causing massive outflow of refugees into neighbouring West African states.

Nigeria will have a good share of them. So, is the Nigerian government prepared to handle such an inflow when it has proved in capable of attending to the needs of internally displaced persons? These are issues too.

Therefore, it is not enough to issue military threats against a sovereign nation. That, in itself, is an invitation to war.

AU and ECOWAS leaders must look the way of Iraq to draw lessons from the forceful removal of its government.

They must also look toward Liberia to realize that loyalists of Taylor are not entirely happy that their leader was betrayed. AU leaders must also go back to history to note that after the war, there was Nuremberg.

Copyright © 2011 Daily Champion. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).