PDA

View Full Version : Ivory Coast



Pages : [1] 2

SWJED
06-10-2007, 12:19 PM
10 June NY Times - A War Ends in Ivory Coast but Peace, Order and Unity Are Flickering Dreams (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/world/africa/10ivory.html) by Lydia Polgreen.


... Under the terms of a peace agreement signed in March, the commander of the rebel army has become the prime minister, sharing power with his old nemesis, President Laurent Gbagbo. Militias loyal to the government have thrown weapons by the hundreds upon pyres in a symbolic disarmament. United Nations peacekeepers have dismantled their checkpoint in the buffer zone between Abidjan, a southern city that is the seat of the government, and this northern capital of the rebellion...

The agreement is the latest in a string of pacts, each of which has previously stumbled at the same fault lines that have thwarted resolution of this conflict — how to disarm the militias on both sides and how to decide, in a country full of migrants and their descendants, who is entitled to Ivorian citizenship?

The rebels have argued that people born here should be considered citizens even if their grandparents or parents migrated, while the government has resisted weakening strict citizenship laws and documentation requirements that previous generations also be Ivorian...

Ron Humphrey
12-03-2010, 05:40 PM
Not sure this hasn't been brought up somewhere else yet if so feel free to move it to the appropriate thread

Election Results Reversed (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/12/03/world/africa/AP-AF-Ivory-Coast-Election.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)


ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast (AP) — Angry youths are protesting in Ivory Coast's main city, burning tires, throwing chunks of concrete and tearing down billboards after election results were reversed.

Rex Brynen
12-25-2010, 12:16 AM
Ecowas bloc threatens Ivory Coast's Gbagbo with force (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12077298)
BBC News
24 December 2010 Last updated at 16:03



The West African regional bloc Ecowas has told incumbent Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo to stand down or expect to face "legitimate force".

The statement came at the end of emergency talks on the crisis sparked by a disputed election last month.

The 15-member bloc and other international bodies have recognised his rival Alassane Ouattara as winner.

davidbfpo
12-26-2010, 12:17 PM
Ron,

You were right to start a thread on the Ivory Coast. I have searched and whilst the term Ivory Coast does appear, SWC has not watched or commented upon the situation there.

I would suggest a couple of reasons for this: we rarely consider UN peacekeeping, let alone other regional peacekeeping (Somalia is an exception); it is in a Francophone country and above all it is in Africa. Would that change here if AFRICOM was to have a role?

Incidentally I would expect France to be the main country wondering WTF, IIRC there was a substantial expatriate community there.

BBC News latest report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12079552

Stan
12-26-2010, 12:35 PM
Greetings from a very snowy Estonia !

David, using the French version... Côte d'Ivoire we do get a few hits, but then this so-labeled LIC deserves its own thread.

Hmmm, Simple coincidence following the (then) president's 18 December order that UN and French troops leave the country and opposition to renew their mandate ?

Gbagbo Orders UN, French Troops Out (http://allafrica.com/stories/201012190001.html)

M-A Lagrange
12-26-2010, 03:58 PM
Would be long to put all the references, especially as most material I have is in French but let say things do not look good.

1) Bagbo asked the UN and French troops to leave,
2) Outara asked the Un to stay
3) UN responded positively to Outara demand
4) French and German governments advised their citizen to leave Ivory Cost
5) Bagbo declared he will fight up to the last cartridge to liberate Ivory Cost…
6) US and UN confirmed that Bagbo sent his death squad and killed over 200 people since in power.
7) 14000 Ivorian fled Ivory Coast to Liberia according to UNHCR

What next?
Civil war restarts or a foreign military intervention to install Outara in power?
That’s the 2 worst case scenarios ever, for Ivory Coast and for the whole continent.

What’s happening in Ivory Coast is important for sub Saharan Africa because it can open the road to a new African model based on legality and freedom of the people to choose their future. Or it can be the final grave of any changes on that continent.

davidbfpo
12-26-2010, 04:38 PM
Maybe helpful, an article on Laurent Gbagbo, the incumbent President who is resisting calls to stand down after the national election:http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/dec/26/profile-laurent-gbagbo-david-smith

JMA
12-26-2010, 05:33 PM
Would be long to put all the references, especially as most material I have is in French but let say things do not look good.

1) Bagbo asked the UN and French troops to leave,
2) Outara asked the Un to stay
3) UN responded positively to Outara demand
4) French and German governments advised their citizen to leave Ivory Cost
5) Bagbo declared he will fight up to the last cartridge to liberate Ivory Cost…
6) US and UN confirmed that Bagbo sent his death squad and killed over 200 people since in power.
7) 14000 Ivorian fled Ivory Coast to Liberia according to UNHCR

What next?
Civil war restarts or a foreign military intervention to install Outara in power?
That’s the 2 worst case scenarios ever, for Ivory Coast and for the whole continent.

What’s happening in Ivory Coast is important for sub Saharan Africa because it can open the road to a new African model based on legality and freedom of the people to choose their future. Or it can be the final grave of any changes on that continent.

This is all predictable. A quick timeline.

Arising from the Kenyan presidential election, 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_presidential_election,_2007) incumbent president Kibaki fiddles the election enough to hang onto power as president while Odinga gets offered the post of Prime Minister (and maybe a Swiss bank account) to shut him up.

Mugabe likes this idea. Zimbabwe 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Zimbabwean_political_negotiation s) - the incumbent president Mugabe fiddles the election and (supported by the military) refuses to stand down. Following the Kenyan example he negotiates a settlement where he and his miklitary thugs retain power while MDC-T's Tsvangirai is offered the post of Prime Minister (and maybe a Swiss bank account) to shut him up.

Now we have Ivory Coast and now following the familiar fashion (like out of Don McLeans American Pie) "the marching band refused to yield" ... but (surprise surprise) the incumbent president says he is willing to negotiate - sound familiar?

Not sure the threat of military force by ECOWAS will achieve anything more than even more chaos and the normal raping, looting and pillaging (Remember Sierra Leone and Liberia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQqX0LNCWmw).

It is time to stop pussy-footing around and apply JMA's 3-Cruise-Missile-Option.

With some sections of the army wavering (it appears) the first missile targets the barracks of the most loyal unit to Gbagbo - do it now, tomorrow.

The second with 12 hours warning targets the current location of Gbagbo himself - he won't be there but will get the message strength 5.

Thereafter the word is put out that there's a $1m for the person who provides Gbagbo's location as a target for the third missile.

I think you will find Gbagbo will agree to discussing the terms of his handing over power to the elected president. This could also act as a rehearsal for the upcoming Zimbabwe elections - those are bound to be a lot of fun too.

Stan
12-26-2010, 06:57 PM
It is time to stop pussy-footing around and apply JMA's 3-Cruise-Missile-Option.

JMA, I sure hope you don't purchase your stuff from Russia. The last few I've seen in Georgia (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6012&highlight=assistance+russian+rockets) don't work :eek:


I think you will find Gbagbo will agree to discussing the terms of his handing over power to the elected president. This could also act as a rehearsal for the upcoming Zimbabwe elections - those are bound to be a lot of fun too.

I think you and M-A have some strong points herein. Not just Zimbabwe but the DRC as well. If we screw this election up, no African alive will feel threatened by the West waving their big stick... Ever again.

M-A Lagrange
12-26-2010, 07:14 PM
JMA,
The cruiser missile solution is not a good solution, despite the fact that I like the idea.
The CEDAO has warned Bagbo that they will use force to support Outtara and install legitimate power in Ivory Coast. That's the solution. A stinky one but still, the solution. On one point Bagbo is right, it's time for the western powers to withdraw from direct intervention in african politic. And for the African Nations to stand for democracy, legitimacy through vote and legality.

I know, it sounds weird, especially coming from some of them. But yes, it's time for a change and to stop the Africa is different so it is legitimate that african people have dictators, because we are different. Yes africa is different but that does not apply to how to access to power.

A missile coming from a US or what ever western nation on Bagbo presidential palace and guard will only make him a martyr. And ultimately reinforce the fact that crazy dictators are legitimately in power on that continent.

An act by the African Nations will put a stone on a long road for change.

And yes Stan, DRC but also Rwanda, Uganda, South Sudan... are to come. (And most probably others that I forget, shouldn't they have soon elections in Liberia, Sierra Leone...).

JMA
12-27-2010, 08:24 AM
JMA,
The cruiser missile solution is not a good solution, despite the fact that I like the idea.
The CEDAO has warned Bagbo that they will use force to support Outtara and install legitimate power in Ivory Coast. That's the solution. A stinky one but still, the solution. On one point Bagbo is right, it's time for the western powers to withdraw from direct intervention in african politic. And for the African Nations to stand for democracy, legitimacy through vote and legality.

I know, it sounds weird, especially coming from some of them. But yes, it's time for a change and to stop the Africa is different so it is legitimate that african people have dictators, because we are different. Yes africa is different but that does not apply to how to access to power.

A missile coming from a US or what ever western nation on Bagbo presidential palace and guard will only make him a martyr. And ultimately reinforce the fact that crazy dictators are legitimately in power on that continent.

An act by the African Nations will put a stone on a long road for change.

And yes Stan, DRC but also Rwanda, Uganda, South Sudan... are to come. (And most probably others that I forget, shouldn't they have soon elections in Liberia, Sierra Leone...).

With respect the "leave it to the Africans" approach is just a cop out.

Hundreds and thousands (millions if you count Rwanda) of Africans have died needlessly due to the failure of the superpowers to act at the critical moment to avert disaster. The critical moment is now and a few well aimed missiles now is what is needed.

If Ghana (the nearest country with some sort of air force) had an air force that could strike (on behalf of ECOWAS) in the manner envisaged in a cruise missile strike then yes that would be the best option. But both the serviceability of the aircraft and their ability to strike the correct target must be considered doubtful.

Solution. ECOWAS jointly and publicly requests the US to do the deed. The US reluctantly agrees and a blood bath is averted.

Stan
12-27-2010, 11:54 AM
With respect the "leave it to the Africans" approach is just a cop out.

In addition to being a mistake :rolleyes:


Hundreds and thousands (millions if you count Rwanda) of Africans have died needlessly due to the failure of the superpowers to act at the critical moment to avert disaster.

We have in fact failed abysmally, but I am pleased to inform you that the two C130 loads of dried biscuits and winter baby clothes did make it to Goma on schedule :eek:


If Ghana (the nearest country with some sort of air force) had an air force that could strike (on behalf of ECOWAS) in the manner envisaged in a cruise missile strike then yes that would be the best option. But both the serviceability of the aircraft and their ability to strike the correct target must be considered doubtful.

No comment (none I could think of laughing myself to death).


Solution. ECOWAS jointly and publicly requests the US to do the deed. The US reluctantly agrees and a blood bath is averted.

We'd be better off asking the Russians to do it. They would agree, but where would we get the ordnance now that their greatest arms dealer in Africa is in an American prison :D

You will be please to know that Gbagbo is not flying anywhere soon as the French and Swiss have grounded his presidential aircraft (http://www.cameroononline.org/2010/12/26/france-grounds-ivory-coast-leader-gbagbos-plane/) for maintenance problems :D

carl
12-27-2010, 03:46 PM
Maybe helpful, an article on Laurent Gbagbo, the incumbent President who is resisting calls to stand down after the national election:http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/dec/26/profile-laurent-gbagbo-david-smith

David:

The most interesting quote in that story is this one by Richard Dowden of the Royal African Society regarding Mr. Gbagbo and company "These are all smart, Sorbonne-educated, sophisticated international people, so I don't know how they think they can get away with this. If it was a jumped-up sergeant major or colonel who had never been outside the country, it would be easier to understand."

That may or may not say something about Mr. Gbagbo and his people but it speaks volumes as to how Mr. Dowden at least, can let a diploma confuse him about human nature.

Stan
12-27-2010, 04:03 PM
Hey Carl,
Remember the term WAWA ? There are certainly hundreds of versions, but essentially, you can take (educate if you will) the man out of WAWA, but you can't take WAWA out of the man.

I was sending on average 70 Zairois a year to NCO and Officer courses. Some as much as a year in the States. Would have thought a little of the better life and an education would have changed things. Nope, back to the former way of doing business.


American and European expats who have lived in West Africa can occasionally be heard to utter in complete frustration "West Africa Wins Again!". Or "Wawa"! It's a sort of Murphy's Law writ large for the endless, and often bureaucratic, obstacles that can impede every step forward.

M-A Lagrange
12-27-2010, 07:02 PM
I'm an impenitent Afro optimist, sorry. :o

Yes, ECOWAS is a bad solution and would probably extend any confrontations for several years (cf Liberia).
Well, that could be a nice opportunity for a mission in a better setting than DRC. :D

davidbfpo
12-29-2010, 12:09 PM
A BBC report on the viability of an armed African intervention:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12083228

Within is a local analyst's viewpoint:
Key countries that would have to contribute may not have the political stomach and the temerity...Nigeria is heading towards elections and may not want to put in troops on the ground for that a long time; Ghana has elections in 2012 and Senegal has its own problems with dynastic succession.

Elsewhere I posted an IISS commentary on the AU's standby forces and here is the link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-16-2010/december/au-regional-force-still-on-standby/

Stan
12-29-2010, 04:49 PM
In fact what will inevitably happen if Nigeria troops enter Cote d'Ivoire under whatever sanctions, local Nigerians living in the Ivory Coast will be subjected to some harsh realities... African Style (http://allafrica.com/stories/201012280642.html).


Dozens of people gathered outside the Nigerian embassy holding signs that read: "We don't want a military intervention" and "Let Ivoirians solve Ivorian problems."

I don't actually agree with "It's time for Africans to fix their problems" because I've seen just how they all end up manipulating each other to no end.

Rex Brynen
12-29-2010, 09:07 PM
I don't actually agree with "It's time for Africans to fix their problems" because I've seen just how they all end up manipulating each other to no end.

Yes, its a good thing none of the Great Powers ever do that ;)

Stan
12-29-2010, 09:15 PM
Yes, its a good thing none of the Great Powers ever do that ;)

Hey Rex,
Good point. Although, I am no advocate of foreign intervention (as it is we're always late for the party while millions die, so why start now :wry: )
Far too many examples of political will vs just a decent cause. We could just fix it and get out (leaving the oil and minerals behind for China I suppose :eek:

Somehow I doubt that's going to happen. It may be the second time as a soldier I was glad the US was otherwise preoccupied with something else !

davidbfpo
12-29-2010, 10:11 PM
I know where the Ivory Coast is, but until a moment ago had little idea what exactly the UN deployment means. Taken with some reservations, as they are UN official documents.

First a map of the military and police deployments:http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/unoci.pdf and the international composition, alas without details:http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unoci/facts.shtml

Most of those listed under military personnel are military observers, not formed units.

Note in Abidjan, the current focus, the UN military come from Bangladesh, Jordan and Togo. IIRC only the Jordanians have a reputation for steadfastness - a legacy of Bosnia. Stan no doubt will remind us what the Bangladeshi unit did in Rwanda.

The French have 800 soldiers in country now, from one press report and I'd expect them to be in the capital too - anxiously watching over the remaining French nationals (maybe 12k).

Marshal Murat
12-30-2010, 04:34 AM
Ivory Coast UN ambassador warns of genocide risk (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12091738)


"We think it's unacceptable. Thus, one of the messages I try to get across during the conversations I have conducted so far, is [that] we are on the brink of genocide."

Mr Bamba said some houses had been marked according to the residents' tribal background, and that he was concerned about what could happen next.

I think this is an interesting claim, something that is either correct, or simply an attempt to link Ivory Coast to Rwanda?

Stan
12-31-2010, 10:18 AM
Hmmm, with the planned Ville Mort passing without participation (ala Zairois) and the UN threats postponed until 03 JAN, we now have...

Renowned French lawyers (http://www.france24.com/en/20101230-french-lawyers-roland-dumas-jacques-verges-laurent-gbagbos-ivory-coast-election) come to Gbagbo's aid


Two famous French lawyers -- one of them best known for defending Nazi Klaus Barbie -- came to Ivory Coast on Thursday to support isolated strongman Laurent Gbagbo.

jmm99
12-31-2010, 04:53 PM
for the job, but my youth and inexperience cut against me. Rats ! :(

Cheers

Mike

ocnus
12-31-2010, 04:58 PM
There seems to be very poor understanding about the background to the current standoff in the Ivory Coast; and an even worse understanding of what 'intervention' means in the context of an African war. Perhaps these will add to the debate

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/The-French-Empire-Strikes-Back.shtml

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/The-International-Community-And-Africa.shtml

Stan
12-31-2010, 05:16 PM
There seems to be very poor understanding about the background to the current standoff in the Ivory Coast; and an even worse understanding of what 'intervention' means in the context of an African war. Perhaps these will add to the debate

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/The-French-Empire-Strikes-Back.shtml

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/The-International-Community-And-Africa.shtml

Welcome aboard OCNUS !

Sadly you've concluded we have a poor understanding of Africa and the current issues in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, but I assure you the members herein have decades of experience. I would recommend a brief read where this thread started (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=11943) instead of starting your own.

Thanks in advance, Stan

ocnus
12-31-2010, 05:26 PM
I apologise for my rudeness. I was not referring to the SWC but to the 'international community' in general with whom I feel a sense of frustration.

SWJED
12-31-2010, 05:31 PM
I apologise for my rudeness. I was not referring to the SWC but to the 'international community' in general with whom I feel a sense of frustration.

Accepted, just realize the Council has some "real" subject matter experts with both muddy boots experience and academic credentials. And there are those like Stan who have been there, done it; and can't stop being there, doing it.:wry:

Stan
12-31-2010, 05:59 PM
Hey again OCNUS,
Took a peek at your links and ... I don't know what to say.

Exactly what is different about Cote d'ivoire from say any other African State in Sub-Sahara ?

Sorry, but you've got it in for the French (or what?). Wait til M-A wakes up in Sudan tonite :D

BTW, remember the AK47 ? Please check your records on the weapons in Sub-Sahara. These were not procured from France.

I'd love to see some of your creative writing RE the Chinese in Africa; might just clear up a few things regarding weapons and procurement.

Regards, Stan



In summary, the colonial pact maintained the French control over the economies of the African states; it took possession of their foreign currency reserves; it controlled the strategic raw materials of the country; it stationed troops in the country with the right of free passage; it demanded that all military equipment be acquired from France; it took over the training of the police and army; it required that French businesses be allowed to maintain monopoly enterprises in key areas (water, electricity, ports, transport, energy, etc.). It is difficult to imagine what the changes were from colonial rule to today that aren't merely cosmetic.

davidbfpo
12-31-2010, 08:37 PM
I have locked this thread, please use the main existing thread on the Ivory Coast:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=11943

Brihard
12-31-2010, 11:46 PM
I'm very much a proponent of intervention on humanitarian grounds / R2P. I'd like to see someone step up and do something in this case, because like most of the rest of the dog's breakfast that is Africa, this seems to have serious potential to quickly explode into a humanitarian catastrophe.

I'm concerned that there may be no parties with all three of the requisites of *efficacy*; the will, means, and credibility to do this. Most of the Anglophone countries won't give a fart about C. d'I. France typically is very self interested in these instances, and I doubt their intervention will extend much past protecting their own citizens. France is increasingly unstable politically, and any domestic perception that France is again engaging in colonial games (accurate or not) will inflame other problems they have.

A coterie of other African nations would likely have the greatest *credibility* in intervening, but frankly I've no trust that a sufficient proportion of them would be operating in good faith, and the professionalism of those forces is in doubt. I've no doubt that they would be willing to use violence to get their way, but probably to such an extreme that the credibility of the intervention would be affected- the other side of the pendulum swing from our (colective western) failure in Rwanda.

It would be great to see Africans sorting out Africa with some westerners helping out (comms, logistics, some boots on the ground, etc), but frankly I've lost most of my optimism about the continent's ability to handle its own affairs effectively... I fear that we're going to get to sit on the sidelines of something awful again, and our respective governments will collectively wring their hands and ask imploringly why somebody doesn't do something?

When people are fleeing *to* Liberia, things are pretty bad.

JMA
01-01-2011, 07:35 AM
... I fear that we're going to get to sit on the sidelines of something awful again, and our respective governments will collectively wring their hands and ask imploringly why somebody doesn't do something

Sadly the time for preemptive action has almost past...

http://blog.al.com/jkennedy/2008/04/small_nero.gif

AdamG
01-01-2011, 05:13 PM
Sadly the time for preemptive action has almost past...


plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
http://www.online-literature.com/poe/36/

CloseDanger
01-01-2011, 10:50 PM
Sadly the time for preemptive action has almost past...

http://blog.al.com/jkennedy/2008/04/small_nero.gif

It's kind of a big thing. Focus on the Referendum on the Southern Succession January 9th. See this overshadow the coming split in Nigeria and CAR. Draw a line in the sand so to speak.

Besides, we froze dudes bank account in the Ivory Coast and grounded his plane. No cash, just bullets. So he is trying to ramp up some cross fire to escape? Ha!

Dayuhan
01-01-2011, 11:04 PM
I sometimes wonder why people ask "why doesn't somebody do something" when they really mean "why don't the Americans do something".

Fiddling while Rome burns is indeed silly... if you're Roman, or the emperor of Rome. Last I looked the US was not the emperor of the Ivory Coast.

Brihard
01-02-2011, 12:02 AM
I may have spoken precipitously on Anglophone nations ignoring the situations...

Britain is now stating that it would support an intervention on a U.N. mandate (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/1231/Britain-says-it-will-support-military-intervention-in-Ivory-Coast), thought here's nothing specifying whether Britain has expressed any intent to provide material support, nor any differentiation between responses to a Chapter 6 v Chapter 7 mandate- the latter would seem to me to be necessary.

The rhetoric is ramping up too. Gbagbo is now accusing the U.N. of having fired on civilians (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guUXUveaYcOGIMvFHjhZ3VQBjoOw?docId=CNG.99e85 6a0fb5a9fea7bf35be7ef15b71d.e21), and is insisting U.N. forces leave.

CloseDanger
01-02-2011, 03:16 AM
I may have spoken precipitously on Anglophone nations ignoring the situations...

The rhetoric is ramping up too. Gbagbo is now accusing the U.N. of having fired on civilians (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guUXUveaYcOGIMvFHjhZ3VQBjoOw?docId=CNG.99e85 6a0fb5a9fea7bf35be7ef15b71d.e21), and is insisting U.N. forces leave.

He is the one that has the private security forces that are trigger happy and will not get paid.

ocnus
01-02-2011, 06:10 AM
I suspect that Goodluck Johnathan in Nigeria has little appetite any longer for imposing the West's solution to cure African election problems with violence after the recent bombings of the military barracks in Abuja. The election battle in Nigeria is fast becoming a mirror of the Ivoirian, pitting a Muslim North against a Christian South. I think you might be surprised to find that there are several African governments, led by Angola, who may be willing to make money available to Gbagbo until he can get back the assets frozen by the French. Gbagbo doesn't have to do very much to stay in power. His power is strong in the South and, if he can escape the clutches of the West trying to freeze his assets, he has no reason to change his course, Ouattara is stuck in enemy territory and kept in business by the UN. Soon, after the Sudan elections and other upcoming events in Africa, the UN will lose interest in forcing an indigestible solution on an intractable problem.

M-A Lagrange
01-02-2011, 12:36 PM
I may have spoken precipitously on Anglophone nations ignoring the situations...

Britain is now stating that it would support an intervention on a U.N. mandate (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/1231/Britain-says-it-will-support-military-intervention-in-Ivory-Coast), thought here's nothing specifying whether Britain has expressed any intent to provide material support, nor any differentiation between responses to a Chapter 6 v Chapter 7 mandate- the latter would seem to me to be necessary.

The rhetoric is ramping up too. Gbagbo is now accusing the U.N. of having fired on civilians (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guUXUveaYcOGIMvFHjhZ3VQBjoOw?docId=CNG.99e85 6a0fb5a9fea7bf35be7ef15b71d.e21), and is insisting U.N. forces leave.


Actually, what I like with the brits in africa is that if they push for a military intervention: they do not want to send troops. So if they say they want to participate, it's almost certain it will not happen.

Concernng the problematic of Muslim and Christians raised by OCNUS, it is true that the situation ischanging at the momment. There is a strong anti muslim push in sub-saharian africa at the momment. Just as there is a strong muslim push which coincide with the long term presence of Pakistany troops in man UN missions. (who said they did train some stupid idiotic armed groups leaders????).
But I remain septic on the capacity of Nigeria to play the lone ranger and fox up even US interrest.

By the way, the French are the one who did conduct most of the military interventions in Africa. The last US military (official) presence in africa lead to a Hollywood movie and I'm not sure that will happen again before long time.
Nt saying it should happen butI do think that there is room for a sub-saharian african power... let say South africa...:D

Marshal Murat
01-02-2011, 06:40 PM
This is one of the best opportunities for the African Union to involve itself in resolving this crisis. ECOWAS could always involve troops from the rest of Africa, with French logistical support, to force Gbagbo out of power. One of the personally interesting points for me is whether ECOWAS would try to initiate a ceasefire or actively support Outtuara's side in any future conflict?

M-A Lagrange
01-02-2011, 07:16 PM
Bagbo seems to have made a huge mistake: :D
Lanny Davis the pro US lobbyist resigned because Bagbo has refused to take a phone call from the White House and supposedly from the President him self.

Link in French:
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/69/20110101/twl-cte-d-ivoire-gbagbo-s-isole-et-perd-b11dcaf.html

jmm99
01-02-2011, 08:31 PM
Lobbyist Quits Job With Ivory Coast Leader (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/world/africa/30lanny.html);

and Gbagbo wants his $$ back, Ivory Coast asks lobbyist for $200,000 back (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/).

Perhaps, the two late octogenarian French "legal beagles" (or is it "legal poodles" ?) can sue poor old Lanny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanny_Davis) in their spare time. :D

Cheers

Mike

ocnus
01-03-2011, 08:02 AM
I've been told that Gbagbo didn't take a call from Obama because he thought it would be better to refuse the call than to say 'No' to Obama who was going to press for a joint tenancy of the Presidency a la Kenya. The role of Susan Rice in this business should not be overlooked. She was widely detested in Africa for her partisanship in favour of Museveni and Kagame. She is a dangerous ideologue with a direct line to Obama. I was with Kabila I when Rice arrived in Kinshasa after a public toasting and feting of Kagame in Kigali. Kabila welcomed Susan Rice at the airport by saying "I welcome you to Kinshasa as the ambassador from Rwanda". There are many impediments in the effort to get a reasoned position in Foggy Bottom.

Pete
01-03-2011, 08:52 AM
I think Western governments should fund a mercenary brigade under JMA to sort out this latest fouled-up situation in Africa. Just imagine, a unit with guys from SAS, Parachute Regiment, the Selous Scouts, and the Waffen SS! Were JMA to be able to pull this one off and emerge victorious he'd become utterly insufferable on the forum, it would be a case of "I told you so" every time you turned around!

JMA
01-03-2011, 11:02 AM
I think Western governments should fund a mercenary brigade under JMA to sort out this latest fouled-up situation in Africa. Just imagine, a unit with guys from SAS, Parachute Regiment, the Selous Scouts, and the Waffen SS! Were JMA to be able to pull this one off and emerge victorious he'd become utterly insufferable on the forum, it would be a case of "I told you so" every time you turned around!

Nice one Pete. :p

No brigade needed... just three cruise missiles like I said. :)



...PS: its not that I'm so clever... its that some others are so stupid ;)

ocnus
01-03-2011, 11:22 AM
It is interesting that you mention Cruise missiles. After the attack on Pademba Prison in Freetown a number of Sierra Leone worthies were evacuated to a US vessel standing offshore. One of the Sierra Leoneans turned to the US Marine General and suggested that he send a Cruise missile towards Freetown to frighten the rebels. The general made a classic reply "If I send a Cruise missile towards Freetown, it would have to fly as far as Dubai before it could ht anything worth more than the missile".

davidbfpo
01-03-2011, 12:04 PM
A long commentary by Knox Chiteyo, from the RUSI, on the BBC News:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11952773

The French presence:
.. France...has 900 highly trained soldiers based near Abidjan airport. The official role of these troops is to be the Rapid Reaction Force of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Ivory Coast.

However, if soldiers from the former colonial power France joined forces with anyone to take Ivory Coast by force it would be political dynamite.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12096437

ocnus
01-04-2011, 03:47 PM
I thought this might be of interest.
http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/West-African-Leaders-On-The-Square-Against-Gbagbo.shtml

Marshal Murat
01-04-2011, 04:19 PM
Gbagbo Agrees to Talks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12114707)


Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo has agreed to negotiate a "peaceful end" to his country's crisis without preconditions, regional leaders say.

The chairman of the Ecowas regional group said Mr Gbagbo had also agreed to immediately lift the blockade around the temporary headquarters of his presidential rival Alassane Ouattara.

Stan
01-04-2011, 07:51 PM
I thought this might be of interest.
http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/West-African-Leaders-On-The-Square-Against-Gbagbo.shtml

OK, I'll bite !

Wish the link text was a little larger - hard to read.

Are the African Leaders and other powerful Africans really, truly, members of the French Masons ? Or, similar to what I witnessed and was later told, these memberships are but token gestures to keep the peace if you will ?

The Rotary Club and Lions Club among others were constantly complaining to the Ambassadors and American Chamber of Commerce over providing symbolic and free of charge memberships to African leaders and other powerful interest group leaders.

This seems more of a right of passage than true participating membership. Although, and in keeping with the typical African business savy, they still manage to squander funds that purportedly end up supporting some political office. While that may certainly be true of real Masons around the world, they have yet to come face-to-face with Africa and her leaders.

I personally wouldn't believe anything an African banker told me... Especially not over cocktails and dinner with US diplomats :D

M-A Lagrange
01-04-2011, 08:26 PM
OK, I'll bite !

Wish the link text was a little larger - hard to read.

Are the African Leaders and other powerful Africans really, truly, members of the French Masons ? Or, similar to what I witnessed and was later told, these memberships are but token gestures to keep the peace if you will ?

Ok, i did try and I don't bite it! Could not even go to the end of the text.

Yes ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration) and Polytechnique are among the 5 most prestigious private schools in France but it just does not work as they describe it.
By the way the aim of ENA is to educate and train high level civil servants! most of the politicians and diplomats... in France went there. No secret neither conspiracy.
Polytechnique was created to train officers... We also have Ecole des Mines
which was made to train high level civil servants by Louis 13... And Central with many nobel prices... By the way, if you graduate those schools, until recently, you were automatically an officer for the reserve. That was a post WW1 law! But shhhhhhh ;)

Most of the African families in Francophone Africa send their children to be educated in France. Yes, so what? They all end up in a secret society?
I have a secret, some African president did serve in the French Army and the French Army is training, in secret, their "special forces"... :cool:

But if we want to talk about the Mason role in this part of Africa, let's talk about Liberia! That's more interresting, historically documented and actually true.

Coming back to Ivory Coast, it seems that US tried to give Bagbo an opportunity to get asylum in Atlanta.

Stan
01-04-2011, 08:44 PM
Coming back to Ivory Coast, it seems that US tried to give Bagbo an opportunity to get asylum in Atlanta.

Not on my tax dollars :mad:

It is now more evident why he refused to speak with president Obama, if all we could offer was life in Georgia :D

JMA
01-06-2011, 12:11 PM
Now here is a yank who seems to have learned something during his time in Africa.

US envoy cautions against power sharing in Ivory Coast (http://tribune.com.ng/index.php/news/15755-us-envoy-cautions-against-power-sharing-in-ivory-coast)


``Because what power sharing does is that it enables a big man who has lost an election to remain in power, and from that perspective this is a particularly sensitive time in Africa.

``The spread of power sharing may well tempt those who lose those elections to try to either somehow hang onto power or gain power or (even) some options of power.

``Power sharing is undemocratic,’’

Simple and self evident... but not to Washington, Paris and London it seems.

Stan
01-06-2011, 03:11 PM
Now here is a yank who seems to have learned something during his time in Africa.

US envoy cautions against power sharing in Ivory Coast (http://tribune.com.ng/index.php/news/15755-us-envoy-cautions-against-power-sharing-in-ivory-coast)

Simple and self evident... but not to Washington, Paris and London it seems.

Hey JMA,
Actually that yank you're referring to has a lot of (recent) history, and not that great a history, both at home and especially abroad.

Limited understanding (http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/News/National/5618246-147/foreign_affairs_minister_slams_former_u.s.csp)


“appears to take delight in inciting instability in Nigeria with his entire thesis based on a worst case scenario and seeming relish in willing it to occur.


Former US Ambassador advocates Military Rule for Nigeria (http://www.elombah.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4637:former-us-ambassador-advocates-military-rule-for-nigeria&catid=36:omoba&Itemid=83)


that military intervention could indeed be a “positive” for the country.


John Campbell Is Wrong On Nigeria Again (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/john-campbell-is-wrong-on-nigeria-again.html)


if Mr. Campbell’s primary motive was centered around helping Nigeria avert chaos, he would have sent his concerns along with appropriate recommendations to the Nigerian authorities. In a situation where the Nigerian authorities ignore him, he could have privately made same recommendations to the US State department to address his Nigerian concerns.

Wikileaks anyone :D

However, he might actually entertain your "3 Cruise Missile theory" :eek:

Regards, Stan

JMA
01-06-2011, 07:51 PM
Hey JMA,
Actually that yank you're referring to has a lot of (recent) history, and not that great a history, both at home and especially abroad.

Hi Stan, Not to detract from how on the button I believe he is with regard to Ivory Coast I note that his predictions for Nigeria (contained in a book) are what has upset some Nigerians.

Upsetting the Nigerian Foreign Minister and a Nigerian blogger into critical responses (to his ideas) is hardly evidence of wholesale condemnation of what he writes/predicts.

Consider that Nigeria with its North/South Muslim/Christian divide is in reality just a larger version of Ivory Coast with the larger potential for calamity.


However, he might actually entertain your "3 Cruise Missile theory" :eek:


Well the body count is at 210 and all we are getting is talk, talk, talk (and some behind the scenes pressure). Lets wait and see.

davidbfpo
01-06-2011, 10:22 PM
Within a BBC report, which refers to;
UN peacekeepers in Ivory Coast are sending a request to the Security Council for 1,000 to 2,000 more troops amid the continuing political crisis.

This gem, which I've not seen reported before:
Foreign Minister Alcide Djedje said The Ivorian army feels it cannot tolerate that 300 heavily armed soldiers from the former rebellion should be in the hotel. If the soldiers go, the blockade will be lifted...The north of the country is controlled by the New Forces, the former rebel movement that supports Mr Ouattara.

I'd only seen reports that the UN were providing security.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12123607

JMA
01-06-2011, 10:48 PM
Within a BBC report, which refers to;

This gem, which I've not seen reported before:

I'd only seen reports that the UN were providing security.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12123607

Well given the failure of the UN in Rwanda and at Srebrenica to protect anyone I would suggest that it would be prudent and intelligent for Ouattara to hedge his bets and bring in his own forces.

Stan
01-08-2011, 08:29 AM
The government of Côte d'Ivoire's incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo has ordered the expulsion (http://allafrica.com/stories/201101070655.html) of the British and Canadian ambassadors because they do not recognise ambassadors appointed by Gbagbo. Presidential claimant Alassane Ouattara meanwhile called for a west African sting operation against Gbagbo.

Then there's this option "Ouattara called Thursday for an operation by west African special forces to kidnap Gbagbo."


"Legitimate force doesn't mean a force against Ivorians," he said. "It's a force to remove Laurent Gbagbo and that's been done elsewhere, in Africa and in Latin America, there are non-violent special operations which allow simply to take the unwanted person and take him elsewhere."

Stan
01-08-2011, 09:17 AM
Upsetting the Nigerian Foreign Minister and a Nigerian blogger into critical responses (to his ideas) is hardly evidence of wholesale condemnation of what he writes/predicts.

Consider that Nigeria with its North/South Muslim/Christian divide is in reality just a larger version of Ivory Coast with the larger potential for calamity.


Hey JMA,
Agreed, and I did provide some weak links to support my theories regarding our Administrations' amateur Africanists :o

However, a tour or two and later a self-proclaimed expert on the region worries me; be it military and/or civilian. They are flattering themselves at best and simultaneously showing our inept ability to comprehend African politics.

Too many from my days and second guessing your African political opponents with ca 1970s studies can only lead us to an ineffective policy for engagements in the most important Francophone country in the region.

The US might have had the last word with Charles Taylor, but we don't have a hope or prayer here. IMO the current administration still doesn't get the internal dynamics of the Ivory Coast and West Africa.

Regards, Stan

Stan
01-08-2011, 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by JMA
Stan, of course you are correct in that even after a few years in Nigeria as ambassador he remains a long way from being an Africa expert. I wish there was something like the "congressional voting record" one could apply to the analyst/chattering class. Very soon we would see who knew what he was talking about.

Lets just look at what he said again:


Because what power sharing does is that it enables a big man who has lost an election to remain in power, and from that perspective this is a particularly sensitive time in Africa.

The spread of power sharing may well tempt those who lose those elections to try to either somehow hang onto power or gain power or (even) some options of power.

Power sharing is undemocratic,’’

JMA,
This is where I think we've lost sight of African leadership and mentality. Years ago opposition in both Brazzaville and Kinshasa was swiftly dealt with (fish food for those along the Congo river). Of course there's no power sharing among former presidents, and to naively think we could leave the outgoing president to live in harmony while the his replacement serves is absurd. It might work for most and supposedly Russia, but nowhere in Africa is there solid evidence of a happy ending. Exactly where (other than say Ghana) has a president simply stepped down following elections (that they seldom held before), and lived happily ever after ?


Originally Posted by JMA
That would seem obvious to me but believe it or not there are a lot of self proclaimed smart guys at State who think differently or see not problem/pattern taking shape across Africa.

In the classic tradition of Africa they take one step forward (holding elections where none were held before) then one step back by refusing to accept the outcome and trying to negotiate personal terms over the wishes of the people under the threat of mass bloodshed). And the smart guys at State are saying... "but at least they are holding elections."

And sadly not just State. I was sitting with my boss in Kinshasa during the uprisings and civil war in Brazzaville (our purported E&E if Zaire went bang again), when an officer reported a "solid shot" artillery projectile going through an adobe hut http://208.101.38.56/council/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ("how about UXO" I remarked with tears coming out of my eyes and severe stomach pains from hysterical laughter).

"Stan, we're only as strong as our weakest link" my Ranger boss contended as we would soon have the same colonel on our team in Rwanda (he lasted less than 5 weeks before the French would no longer house him and my boss sent him back home packing). This colonel went on to become Clinton's adviser to Africa http://208.101.38.56/council/images/smilies/eek.gif


Originally Posted by JMA
Well one learns from Africa that "when the elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled" - (Kikuyu proverb).
My Lingala is a bit rusty, but this one I recall well...
Moto ya soso balabi, libata aseki, mpo nzungu ya lobi nde ya ye, mokili tour tour.

Literally translated means "The chicken's head is cooking while the duck laughs. But it forgets that tomorrow's pot will contain its head. Something like what comes around, goes around !

Our years of meddling with Africa have taught us nothing. Now, with reduced funding we witlessly conclude we can simply call someone and say stop !


Originally Posted by JMA http://208.101.38.56/council/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://208.101.38.56/council/showthread.php?p=113470#post113470)
Good heavens Stan, you mean beyond fun on the cocktail party circuit the US State department has little to show for the last fifty years (or so) of engagement with Africa?
Hmmm, the cocktail party circuit ? Now that I'm no longer part of that and pining away in this freezing country I recall some really good times at the Ambassador's residence watching AA fire crossing the river... like the 4th of July. Some of my best times and contacts were at gun point http://208.101.38.56/council/images/smilies/wink.gif

JMA
01-10-2011, 02:05 AM
Originally Posted by Stan http://208.101.38.56/council/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://208.101.38.56/council/showthread.php?p=113465#post113465)
Hey JMA,
Agreed, and I did provide some weak links to support my theories regarding our Administrations' amateur Africanists http://208.101.38.56/council/images/smilies/redface.gif

However, a tour or two and later a self-proclaimed expert on the region worries me; be it military and/or civilian. They are flattering themselves at best and simultaneously showing our inept ability to comprehend African politics.Stan, of course you are correct in that even after a few years in Nigeria as ambassador he remains a long way from being an Africa expert. I wish there was something like the "congressional voting record" one could apply to the analyst/chattering class. Very soon we would see who knew what he was talking about.

Lets just look at what he said again:


Because what power sharing does is that it enables a big man who has lost an election to remain in power, and from that perspective this is a particularly sensitive time in Africa.

The spread of power sharing may well tempt those who lose those elections to try to either somehow hang onto power or gain power or (even) some options of power.

Power sharing is undemocratic,’’ That would seem obvious to me but believe it or not there are a lot of self proclaimed smart guys at State who think differently or see not problem/pattern taking shape across Africa.

In the classic tradition of Africa they take one step forward (holding elections where none were held before) then one step back by refusing to accept the outcome and trying to negotiate personal terms over the wishes of the people under the threat of mass bloodshed). And the smart guys at State are saying... "but at least they are holding elections."


Too many from my days and second guessing your African political opponents with ca 1970s studies can only lead us to an ineffective policy for engagements in the most important Francophone country in the region. Well one learns from Africa that "when the elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled" - (Kikuyu proverb).

So why it is not obvious to State if you want to avoid the "grass getting trampled" (and end up paying billions in humanitarian aid, reconstruction projects etc etc) you take the bad elephants out before they cause damage? Quick and clean.

Then another obvious Africa proverb "If you want to kill a snake hit it on the head."

Maybe we should run a seminar for the clowns at State called "The Art of the Obvious" http://208.101.38.56/council/images/smilies/wink.gif


The US might have had the last word with Charles Taylor, but we don't have a hope or prayer here. IMO the current administration still doesn't get the internal dynamics of the Ivory Coast and West Africa. Regards, Stan
Good heavens Stan, you mean beyond fun on the cocktail party circuit the US State department has little to show for the last fifty years (or so) of engagement with Africa?

Dayuhan
01-10-2011, 04:11 AM
So why it is not obvious to State if you want to avoid the "grass getting trampled" (and end up paying billions in humanitarian aid, reconstruction projects etc etc) you take the bad elephants out before they cause damage? Quick and clean.

Who decides which elephants to "take out", and who does the dirty work? Sounds simple enough, but preemptive whacking of leaders we think might do damage raises certain complexities of its own.

JMA
01-10-2011, 10:34 AM
Who decides which elephants to "take out", and who does the dirty work? Sounds simple enough, but preemptive whacking of leaders we think might do damage raises certain complexities of its own.

Its been decided, in this case its Laurent Gbagbo. Decided by the UN, the AU, the US, France, Britain etc etc. The bad elephant has been identified.

Who does the dirty work? Why dirty work? Its an international duty towards the people of the Ivory Coast. Can't seem to get ECOWAS to put their money where their mouths are (after bellicose mutterings) and don't hold your breath for NATO countries... the Hungarians are still waiting from 1956 for help against the Soviets. Don't hold your breath for the UN... the people of Rwanda and Srebrenica are still waiting for the UN assistance.

So really there is no cavalry coming to the assistance of the people of Ivory Coast is there.

Short of looking for funding to send Executive Outcomes in to do the business the easy way would be to put a US$1m bountry on Gbagbo's head. I'm sure some bodyguard will go for the money.

The idea is to deal with the elephants before the grass gets trampled.

Dayuhan
01-10-2011, 11:49 AM
Its been decided, in this case its Laurent Gbagbo. Decided by the UN, the AU, the US, France, Britain etc etc. The bad elephant has been identified.

Identifying a bad guy is one thing, deciding to "take him out" is another. Who do you expect to do that?


So really there is no cavalry coming to the assistance of the people of Ivory Coast is there.

No, there isn't. Who has interests in the Ivory Coast that would justify the expense of sending the cavalry? Whose cavalry do you think ought to ride to the rescue, and at whose expense?


the easy way would be to put a US$1m bountry on Gbagbo's head. I'm sure some bodyguard will go for the money.

Who do you think should offer - and pay - the money?


The idea is to deal with the elephants before the grass gets trampled.

In the unlikely event that the US or anyone else were to intervene, send cavalry, or start bunging cruise missiles about the place, wouldn't the intervening party be just more elephant trampling the grass? I don't suppose it matters much to the grass whether the elephant doing the trampling is good or bad.

It's all very well to suggest that "we" should go launching cruise missiles, but as far as I know we (the inmates at SWJ) are not in a position to do that. I certainly haven't any cruise missiles at my disposal, have you? Mostly only governments do, and they are somewhat restricted in where they can send them. The US isn't likely to be firing missiles at anyone unless they can at least muster a vague pretense that the target is a threat to US security. The potential for fluctuations in the global price of cocoa does not count as a security threat.

JMA
01-10-2011, 04:09 PM
Identifying a bad guy is one thing, deciding to "take him out" is another. Who do you expect to do that?

ECOWAS have been huffing and puffing. But remember my point was it is better to take one person out with minimal collateral damage than to let him start another civil war.


No, there isn't. Who has interests in the Ivory Coast that would justify the expense of sending the cavalry? Whose cavalry do you think ought to ride to the rescue, and at whose expense?

ECOWAS was threatening military action. But I would agree that unless France or the EU put up the cash it will not happen.


Who do you think should offer - and pay - the money?

The country where Ivory Coast has money in the bank. Do the business then take the money from the account. I'm sure President Alassane Ouattara won't mind as long as he get his country back.


In the unlikely event that the US or anyone else were to intervene, send cavalry, or start bunging cruise missiles about the place, wouldn't the intervening party be just more elephant trampling the grass? I don't suppose it matters much to the grass whether the elephant doing the trampling is good or bad.

No. A targeted missile strike is quick and clean and if timed right can fix the problem right then and there.


It's all very well to suggest that "we" should go launching cruise missiles, but as far as I know we (the inmates at SWJ) are not in a position to do that. I certainly haven't any cruise missiles at my disposal, have you? Mostly only governments do, and they are somewhat restricted in where they can send them. The US isn't likely to be firing missiles at anyone unless they can at least muster a vague pretense that the target is a threat to US security. The potential for fluctuations in the global price of cocoa does not count as a security threat.

Cocoa? Yes then maybe Cadbury or Hershey would be prepared to pay so as to keep the cocoa price down and the flow of product stable?

What in my view should be done and whether it is ever done and by whom is not the issue here it is merely a recommended course of action (by me). And given the gross incompetence of the West (and old Soviets) in dealing with Africa over many years a clear change in policy is sorely needed... because in any event the West will pick up the humanitarian bill... and you see if they don't.

M-A Lagrange
01-10-2011, 04:56 PM
ECOWAS was threatening military action. But I would agree that unless France or the EU put up the cash it will not happen.

The country where Ivory Coast has money in the bank. Do the business then take the money from the account. I'm sure President Alassane Ouattara won't mind as long as he get his country back.


I am afraid that there is a redundancy here: countries where Ivory Coast has money in bank and EU and France are the same.
And part from UK in an intend to defend catbury, no one is willing, especially the european country called France...

Stan
01-10-2011, 05:00 PM
What in my view should be done and whether it is ever done and by whom is not the issue here it is merely a recommended course of action (by me). And given the gross incompetence of the West (and old Soviets) in dealing with Africa over many years a clear change in policy is sorely needed... because in any event the West will pick up the humanitarian bill... and you see if they don't.

JMA,

Not that I'm supporting your cruise missile purchases or anything, but would have to agree 110%.

If we could even slightly fathom the cost of Rwanda and Zaire in humanitarian aid over the last decade, we could have bought the two countries outright and started over again (as long as nobody was over the age of 5 :rolleyes:)

Our policies are indeed sorely in need of change. There's none so blind as those who will not see !

BTW, leave your western mentality at the door.... Jungle Rules Apply

Dayuhan
01-11-2011, 04:16 AM
But remember my point was it is better to take one person out with minimal collateral damage than to let him start another civil war.

My point was that to "take out" one person there has to be an order for which some individual somewhere has to be accountable, and that this sort of decision comes with major legal and political repercussions. Most nations with cruise missiles at their disposal have laws about paying to have people killed, and about removing money from bank accounts without the approval of the account holder. The decision to send a missile into an army barracks would have to be taken at the Presidential level, and the potential political liability would be... severe, to say the least. In what nation with the capacity to make such a decision do you think such a decision could be made legally and without unacceptable political blowback? Maybe the Russians or the Chinese could get away with it, but that would take some persuading. I doubt that they would give a damn.


Cocoa? Yes then maybe Cadbury or Hershey would be prepared to pay so as to keep the cocoa price down and the flow of product stable?

Wonderful idea... corporate capitalists pay to have an African leader killed to protect their profits. Lawyers and leftists around the world wet their shorts in spasms of ecstasy. Do you think any corporate executive or board is going to authorize a decision like that? You do understand, I assume, what the legal liabilities involved would be...

It ain't happening... and while changes in policy are probably needed, any proposed change involving unilateral intervention in situations where there is no compelling national interest for the intervening party is pretty unrealistic.



If we could even slightly fathom the cost of Rwanda and Zaire in humanitarian aid over the last decade, we could have bought the two countries outright and started over again (as long as nobody was over the age of 5 :rolleyes:)

Our policies are indeed sorely in need of change. There's none so blind as those who will not see !

BTW, leave your western mentality at the door.... Jungle Rules Apply

I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

M-A Lagrange
01-11-2011, 06:51 AM
I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

Well, a quick topof my skull calculation will make an average of 100 millions/years for 15 years... That would make 1 500 millions$.
Not overwhelming but still makes some money. I doubt that the cost of a reguiment overseas would cost that much more.
Don't forget huanitarian aid is not chea. An average cost for a 6 month project is between 300 and 500 thousands $.

And by the way, playing by the jungle rule is exactly why Eu and US had an almost "cold war" like through proxy in DRC for 15 years (Ok Stan you can shoot at me at sight for that one :cool:). European countries (mainly France and UK) do play the jungle rule game pretty well.:rolleyes:

JMA
01-11-2011, 07:41 AM
My point was that to "take out" one person there has to be an order for which some individual somewhere has to be accountable, and that this sort of decision comes with major legal and political repercussions. Most nations with cruise missiles at their disposal have laws about paying to have people killed, and about removing money from bank accounts without the approval of the account holder. The decision to send a missile into an army barracks would have to be taken at the Presidential level, and the potential political liability would be... severe, to say the least. In what nation with the capacity to make such a decision do you think such a decision could be made legally and without unacceptable political blowback? Maybe the Russians or the Chinese could get away with it, but that would take some persuading. I doubt that they would give a damn.

You are now grouping everything said into one context.

The simple premise I am advocating is that it is better/more cost effective/more intelligent to target the leadership of the illegal organisation/the insurrection/the insurgency than to allow the whole nation to be sucked into a civil war (as in this case). Once that (simple) decision is made in principle the choice of methodology is a totally different matter.


Wonderful idea... corporate capitalists pay to have an African leader killed to protect their profits. Lawyers and leftists around the world wet their shorts in spasms of ecstasy. Do you think any corporate executive or board is going to authorize a decision like that? You do understand, I assume, what the legal liabilities involved would be...

You are wrong. Gbagbo is no longer an African Leader but is now no more than a criminal (like Charles Taylor). Thankfully I fall into the small group whose life and actions are not governed by lawyers and leftists. (you obviously missed the tongue in cheek nature of that comment - I must really remember to use smilies)


It ain't happening... and while changes in policy are probably needed, any proposed change involving unilateral intervention in situations where there is no compelling national interest for the intervening party is pretty unrealistic.

Come on you can't be serious. What was in the compelling national interest in Iraq and Afghanistan?


I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

The exact cost of humanitarian aid? It you want to know you must find out.

The point I am making is that a strike against an individual is more cost effective in both human and financial/economic terms as allowing matters to slide into civil war.


One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

It seems that you are blissfully unaware that the US (certainly) and maybe the EU (but certainly the individual states from time to time) have indulged in behind the scenes extra legal activities.

But in this case we have a person who lost the election refusing to yield. That makes him a criminal. That makes a George Bush "dead or alive" reward quite acceptable.

JMA
01-11-2011, 07:53 AM
Well, a quick topof my skull calculation will make an average of 100 millions/years for 15 years... That would make 1 500 millions$.
Not overwhelming but still makes some money. I doubt that the cost of a reguiment overseas would cost that much more.
Don't forget huanitarian aid is not chea. An average cost for a 6 month project is between 300 and 500 thousands $.

And by the way, playing by the jungle rule is exactly why Eu and US had an almost "cold war" like through proxy in DRC for 15 years (Ok Stan you can shoot at me at sight for that one :cool:). European countries (mainly France and UK) do play the jungle rule game pretty well.:rolleyes:

What costs $100m per year? Just Ivory Coast itself?

The UN Humanitarian Appeal 2011 is for $7.4 billion. That figure does not include what the EU or individual governments contribute directly.

So we are back to JMAs Law: a cruise missile in time saves countless lives and millions in future aid.

M-A Lagrange
01-11-2011, 09:33 AM
What costs $100m per year? Just Ivory Coast itself?

The UN Humanitarian Appeal 2011 is for $7.4 billion. That figure does not include what the EU or individual governments contribute directly.

So we are back to JMAs Law: a cruise missile in time saves countless lives and millions in future aid.

I was responding to Stan. 100 million/year is the humanitarian budget of USAID for DRC.
If you include other agencies, you go up to 300 million/year.
Just USAID + EU + DFID= 250 millions/year

Saving lives in sierra places is costly!

JMA
01-11-2011, 10:04 AM
I was responding to Stan. 100 million/year is the humanitarian budget of USAID for DRC.
If you include other agencies, you go up to 300 million/year.
Just USAID + EU + DFID= 250 millions/year

Saving lives in sierra places is costly!

Ok, thanks.

So the costs are really phenomenal.

In Ivory Coast the deaths are already over 200 (anyone want to place a cost on that?) and the refugees UNHCR are handling are 22,000 and set to rise to 30,000 shortly.

But all we hear is talk, talk, talk from the diplomats and politicians.

Stan
01-11-2011, 11:23 AM
Hey Dayuhan,




I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

Ill have to look for the figures in some very old files, but I can give you an idea as to just what the USG did with not only humanitarian support, but also simultaneously providing deployed troops.

We flew fire trucks (to pump and purify water from a dead lake) from California on C5s, deployed and housed troops from Italy, and flew in aid on C130s all in less than two weeks. I rented several acres of land (coupla million) and had to bulldoze the bodies and other undesirable things off it first. I'd have to say in the course of that week alone I blew 50 million using my telephone :wry:


One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

I couldn't agree with you more (then and now). It's not at all PC, but it is reality.

Regards, Stan

Stan
01-11-2011, 11:27 AM
And by the way, playing by the jungle rule is exactly why Eu and US had an almost "cold war" like through proxy in DRC for 15 years (Ok Stan you can shoot at me at sight for that one :cool:). European countries (mainly France and UK) do play the jungle rule game pretty well.:rolleyes:

M-A,
That's exactly what I wanted to say... We don't know how to play by the local rules. And, I agree with Dayuhan - if we don't want to play that way we shouldn't be there with our diplomatic Bravo Sierra speeches.

M-A Lagrange
01-11-2011, 03:19 PM
Hey Dayuhan,
Ill have to look for the figures in some very old files, but I can give you an idea as to just what the USG did with not only humanitarian support, but also simultaneously providing deployed troops.

We flew fire trucks (to pump and purify water from a dead lake) from California on C5s, deployed and housed troops from Italy, and flew in aid on C130s all in less than two weeks. I rented several acres of land (coupla million) and had to bulldoze the bodies and other undesirable things off it first. I'd have to say in the course of that week alone I blew 50 million using my telephone :wry:
I couldn't agree with you more (then and now). It's not at all PC, but it is reality.
Regards, Stan

Actually, the US last year, just for humanitarian aid in DRC had a nearly $70 million. DFID, had near $60 million and Eu near $50 millions.
That does not include the funds for bilateral cooperation and other things. I am sure the budget in Ivory Coast is also close to that.

And phone can be extremely costly. I remember a bill of 1500 euros (2000 something $) for 24 days in Lebanon in 2006. And that was just me, you had my team of 4 people...

Figures of humanitarian aid are just crazy.

Stan
01-11-2011, 03:44 PM
And phone can be extremely costly. I remember a bill of 1500 euros (2000 something $) for 24 days in Lebanon in 2006. And that was just me, you had my team of 4 people...

Figures of humanitarian aid are just crazy.

M-A,
I didn't mean the phone calls were 50 million, but using the phone to call in support and flights which came to over 50 million. TelCel in Goma was $6.00 a minute back then, and you had to provide an initial deposit of $6,000.00 before they would connect you.

I had six phones (one for Mrs Gore who never showed) which we used so much I ended up wiring SATCOM lithium batteries so we could talk for 10 days without a recharge :cool:

Now that we're onto minuscule charges, I should note just how much overflight and landing costs were. Most of our bills for one month with 3 to 5 flights a day always had 6 zeros. Seemed the Zairois were fond of zeros :D

We won't talk about how much 120,000 pounds of Jet A1 cost per aircraft... it would scare you to death !

JMA
01-11-2011, 04:24 PM
M-A,
I didn't mean the phone calls were 50 million, but using the phone to call in support and flights which came to over 50 million. TelCel in Goma was $6.00 a minute back then, and you had to provide an initial deposit of $6,000.00 before they would connect you.

I had six phones (one for Mrs Gore who never showed) which we used so much I ended up wiring SATCOM lithium batteries so we could talk for 10 days without a recharge :cool:

Now that we're onto minuscule charges, I should note just how much overflight and landing costs were. Most of our bills for one month with 3 to 5 flights a day always had 6 zeros. Seemed the Zairois were fond of zeros :D

We won't talk about how much 120,000 pounds of Jet A1 cost per aircraft... it would scare you to death !

And remember it was the same country ripping you off for among other things overflight and landing rights etc etc that you were jumping through hoops trying to help. As they say...

M-A Lagrange
01-11-2011, 05:38 PM
Stan,

I wasn't talking about that crazy phone call during which I was given 2 min to find ideas to spend 500 000$. :D

To come back to Ivory Coast, Bagbo seems to have win the first game as Outtara is trying to give an hand and the ECOWAS negotiators are back.

Dayuhan
01-12-2011, 01:06 AM
The simple premise I am advocating is that it is better/more cost effective/more intelligent to target the leadership of the illegal organisation/the insurrection/the insurgency than to allow the whole nation to be sucked into a civil war (as in this case). Once that (simple) decision is made in principle the choice of methodology is a totally different matter.


The simple point I'm trying to make is that both decision and method are subject to legal and political constraints.

I also have to wonder if removing a leader will necessarily solve the problem. If we blow up Gbagbo, does Outtara peacefully become President? Or does the other fruitcake, Charlie B. Goode or whatever his name is, lead the mob in storming the Golf Hotel and sending Outtara back north in 57 separate mason jars?



Thankfully I fall into the small group whose life and actions are not governed by lawyers and leftists.

I'm there too... not leftist nor lawyers, the media or public opinion. Not my problem. Of course we're also not elected officials and we don't have our fingers on the cruise missile button. The people who are in that position have to deal with constraints that do not apply to you and me.



Come on you can't be serious. What was in the compelling national interest in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Congress thought there was one. You and I may or may not agree, but they decide. I don't see them, or Obama, or anyone, deciding to send missiles to the Ivory Coast.



The point I am making is that a strike against an individual is more cost effective in both human and financial/economic terms as allowing matters to slide into civil war.

If a civil war is really that imminent, removing one individual is as likely to set it off as to stop it... and again, decisions to "remove" an individual are in the real world subject to legal and political constraint. Those constraints can be overcome if it's something we really, really want to do... but we don't.

I've had occasional fantasies about solving problems with high explosives myself. Easy to think about, but since we all know it isn't going to happen, why bother discussing it?

The calculation of humanitarian aid vs intervention is not just based on money. Aid makes us feel good, intervention makes us feel bad. Politicians like their constituents to feel good.


It seems that you are blissfully unaware that the US (certainly) and maybe the EU (but certainly the individual states from time to time) have indulged in behind the scenes extra legal activities.

That's worked out ever so well in the past... or hasn't it? Saying it with missiles isn't exactly "behind the scenes", and there's a serious deficit of plausible deniability there. Political costs, political benefits.

M-A Lagrange
01-12-2011, 11:29 AM
What ever you thought about (assassination, cruiser missile…) it’s too late.
Outtara supporters have decided to fight back. This, according to my academic and field knowledge, is called civil wars or at least the premises.


Ivory Coast policemen die in clashes in Abidjan

At least two police officers have died in fresh fighting overnight in Ivory Coast's main city of Abidjan, in a stronghold of Alassane Ouattara.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12170838

In French speaking media, the body count is already at 4 to 5 policemen. According to some interviews, population in pro Outtara part of the city where it is happening said: they come to kill us why should we not defend our selves…

And frankly, why should they not defend their selves?

JMA
01-12-2011, 10:08 PM
What ever you thought about (assassination, cruiser missile…) it’s too late.
Outtara supporters have decided to fight back. This, according to my academic and field knowledge, is called civil wars or at least the premises.

Absolutely... its called the window of opportunity... and it has now passed.

Now its time to look at plan B... if they have one.

If there is one thing all politicians of all nations have a proven ability for is... dithering.

It would be hilarious if the price to be paid down the line was not the lives and livelihoods of the people of Ivory Coast.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12170838

In French speaking media, the body count is already at 4 to 5 policemen. According to some interviews, population in pro Outtara part of the city where it is happening said: they come to kill us why should we not defend our selves…

And frankly, why should they not defend their selves?

Defend themselves indeed. Then the next step is "why wait for them to come for us, lets take the war to them." Then those in the North say "we should go to the assistance of our brothers and sisters in the South before they are butchered." And so on and so forth...

JMA
01-12-2011, 10:13 PM
The simple point I'm trying to make is that both decision and method are subject to legal and political constraints.

I also have to wonder if removing a leader will necessarily solve the problem. If we blow up Gbagbo, does Outtara peacefully become President? Or does the other fruitcake, Charlie B. Goode or whatever his name is, lead the mob in storming the Golf Hotel and sending Outtara back north in 57 separate mason jars?

I'm there too... not leftist nor lawyers, the media or public opinion. Not my problem. Of course we're also not elected officials and we don't have our fingers on the cruise missile button. The people who are in that position have to deal with constraints that do not apply to you and me.

Congress thought there was one. You and I may or may not agree, but they decide. I don't see them, or Obama, or anyone, deciding to send missiles to the Ivory Coast.

If a civil war is really that imminent, removing one individual is as likely to set it off as to stop it... and again, decisions to "remove" an individual are in the real world subject to legal and political constraint. Those constraints can be overcome if it's something we really, really want to do... but we don't.

I've had occasional fantasies about solving problems with high explosives myself. Easy to think about, but since we all know it isn't going to happen, why bother discussing it?

The calculation of humanitarian aid vs intervention is not just based on money. Aid makes us feel good, intervention makes us feel bad. Politicians like their constituents to feel good.

That's worked out ever so well in the past... or hasn't it? Saying it with missiles isn't exactly "behind the scenes", and there's a serious deficit of plausible deniability there. Political costs, political benefits.

I'm going to walk away from this ###-for-tat exchange as I have made my point and you have challenged that... but as per usual you offer no solution. If you have a solution please present it.

davidbfpo
01-14-2011, 10:12 PM
The full title The 'problem' with Côte d’Ivoire: how the media misrepresent the causes of conflict'.

Opening paragraph:
Much media coverage of conflict in the Ivory Coast relies on a familiar explanation of Africa's wars - that they stem from immutable tribal and sectarian differences. Despite religious and ethnic faultlines, conflict in the Ivory Coast is above all political, argues Patrick Meehan.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/patrick-meehan/problem-with-c%C3%B4te-d%E2%80%99ivoire-how-media-misrepresent-causes-of-conflict

Not my area, but I found it a good read.

Dayuhan
01-15-2011, 02:56 AM
I'm going to walk away from this ###-for-tat exchange as I have made my point and you have challenged that... but as per usual you offer no solution. If you have a solution please present it.

I have not the capacity, responsibility, or right to solve the problems of the Ivory Coast. Neither has the United States.

If you want to solve them, go right ahead, just leave us out of it... and please recall that "solutions" beginning with "somebody ought to..." or "we ought to..." mean absolutely nothing unless you specify who "somebody" or "we" will actually be.

JMA
01-15-2011, 06:38 AM
I have not the capacity, responsibility, or right to solve the problems of the Ivory Coast. Neither has the United States.

If you want to solve them, go right ahead, just leave us out of it... and please recall that "solutions" beginning with "somebody ought to..." or "we ought to..." mean absolutely nothing unless you specify who "somebody" or "we" will actually be.

The problem I have with your position is that you as an individual attempt to speak on behalf of the whole of the United States. You are not the President so you should end statements such as "Neither has the United States" with the standard IMHO (in my honest opinion).

When I state that problems should be addressed (that is a personal opinion) and you immediately assume that the call has gone out for the US to help, not so. Not in Africa anyway.

But read through this Humanitarian Military Intervention in Africa (http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/africa/africa4.cfm#top) and unless this has changed greatly since it is perhaps you who is out in left field?

JMA
01-15-2011, 07:31 AM
The full title The 'problem' with Côte d’Ivoire: how the media misrepresent the causes of conflict'.

Opening paragraph:

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/patrick-meehan/problem-with-c%C3%B4te-d%E2%80%99ivoire-how-media-misrepresent-causes-of-conflict

Not my area, but I found it a good read.

The supposition that all Africa's problems can be traced to the World Bank/IMF's structural adjustment programmes is merely the current left wing nonsense.

If only the problems of Africa were as simple as that.

The simple problem (to all but the most intellectually challenged) is that you can't build a robust economy on subsistence based agriculture on small family plots with what passes for expertise being passed from father to son and with or without a cash mono-crop (such as Cocao) which is vulnerable to fluctuations (and manipulation) on the world market. Forgetaboutit... can't be done.

Now toss into the mix the ballooning populations and the pressure on land with a potentially explosive ethnic/religious mix and you get what you see in Africa today.

Colin Robinson
01-19-2011, 08:38 PM
Dear all,
These ideas on the possible roots of Cote d'Ivoire's crisis are from an academic book that trys to figure out the nature of government and the state in Africa.

Would very much appreciate your thoughts:
Colin

Chabal & Daloz discuss three potential alternate models of weak state political governance in their 1999 book ‘Africa Works: Disorder as Political Instrument.’ These are a neo-patrimonial model derived directly from Weberian sociology, the hybrid state perspective, and the ‘paradigm of the transplanted state.’

Chabal and Daloz argue that from the perspective of the neo-patrimonial model of governance, the African state is both illusory and substantial. ‘It is illusory because its modus operandi is essentially informal, the rule of law is feebly enforced and the ability to implement public policy remains most limited. It is substantial because its control is the ultimate prize for political elites: indeed, it is the chief instrument of patrimonialism.’ Chabal and Daloz say the neo-patrimonial model’s two main advantages are that it accounts for the overlapping of the public and private spheres, and that it helps to explains in which ways the operation of the political system is no longer entirely traditional. The outward façade conforms to Western standards while the actual workings ‘derive from patrimonial dynamics.’

The hybrid state perspective ‘focuses on the effects for politics of the mixing of the Western norms introduced under colonial rule and the values inherent to African social systems.’ Chabal and Daloz say that the hybrid state stresses the re-appropriation and successful adaptation of the Western model of the state to the African context. Within the fixed boundaries referred to by Herbst, mentioned in the literature review chapter, the African state has been reshaped according to local political practices. The state is then used as an instrument of ‘primitive accumulation’ achieved through the monopoly seizure of the means of production by the political elites.

The ‘paradigm of the transplanted state,’ Chabal and Daloz note, is more accurately a paradigm conceptualizing the rejection of the transplanted state. The wholesale transfer of the Western state to Africa, they say, has failed very much because of cultural factors. The development of the modern Western European state, itself the outcome of a particular development path, cannot be simply transported to a wholly different socio-cultural setting. Both the institutions and the trappings of the Western state acquire entirely different meanings and modes of operation outside their original Western European habitat. The transplanted state, therefore is generically distinct, and large parts of the original model are discarded or cease to function.

Chabal and Daloz advance their own model, the political instrumentalization of disorder, as preferable to any of the other three options when analyzing African states. They emphasize the ‘profit to be found in the weak institutionalization of political practices.’ In other words, elites find it advantageous when the state is only allowed a certain degree of effectiveness. Political elites gain from a weak state because it allows them to maximize their political and economic returns. Chabal and Daloz say that the state is both ‘vacuous’ and ‘ineffectual.’ This has profound implications for SSR and other types of governance efforts that are commenced by Western donor states. Chabal and Daloz rhetorically ask why African political elites should dismantle a political system which advantages them so much. ‘The notion that politicians, bureaucrats, or military chiefs should be the servants of the state simply does not make sense.’

Chabal and Daloz note however that regarding Africa, the neo-patrimonial model is useful only if it is made clear that colonial administrative penetration only went so far. Colonial administrators, they argue, ‘never managed to overcome the strongly instrumental and personalized characteristics of ‘traditional’ African administration.’ Chabal and Daloz’s warning about not overcoming strongly instrumental and personalized characteristics of traditional administration, however, may also be applicable to the tribal nature of governance in Afghanistan and Iraq.

ocnus
01-24-2011, 05:21 PM
Perhaps I can suggest a different analysis of the impasse in the Ivory Coast
http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/The-Impasse-in-the-Ivory-Coast.shtml

Stan
01-24-2011, 06:00 PM
Regrettable, everything at the link sounds very much like any African country I have ever lived and worked in. I don't see the uniqueness of the Côte d'Ivoire from any other former colony. What I do see is very similar problems once the Africans were left to their own demise and thought they were playing in the big leagues with hungry Western powers.


These new Cabinet ministers demanded large salaries, cars and jobs in their ministries for their friends and families. No notion of competence or training was used in the selection of the new Cabinet ministers. Only that they were chosen by the rebel bands. In fact, few actually showed up to work. The civil administration of the country was incoherent and conflicted as the national interest took second place to the demands of rival Cabinet ministers.

They quickly learned how to amass wealth and power and once that taste was had, shy of death, little was going to change their path.


Without reference to a Constitution, government is illegitimate and there is no agreed common weal. And, if for some reason, sovereignty is tainted or diluted, democracy cannot function in anything but a trivial manner. These are all descriptors of the political situation in the Ivory Coast.

I need help with this passage please. Exactly where is this statement not true in nearly all of Africa, and what makes it so unique to the Ivory Coast? I couldn't call the Ivorian Constitution legit now any more than I could 15 years ago. I do recall however that Abidjan was like heaven compared to where I had been. Many said the same for Zaire under Belgian rule.


There have been many observers who have noted that the Ivory Coast military remains loyal to President Gbagbo. This is not really surprising as each soldier and officer took an oath which pledges them to the defence of the Constitution.

Defending the Constitution ? Does anyone actually believe that ? Watch what happens when their salaries are cut or devaluated.


A vital dimension to this conflict is the fact that most of the Ivory Coast population is under 26 years of age. There is a great gap between the population and the group of geriatrics which run the political structures in the country.

Again, this applies to nearly any of the dictatorships in Africa. The old farts will hang on to the bitter end, or until the cash runs out.

JMA
03-01-2011, 08:46 AM
... once again - surprise, surprise - the attempts at a negotiated settlement are failing. (when will they ever learn)

The Ivory Coast now slides towards civil war as the opportunity for swift, violent action has passed.

Fighting Spreads as Ivory Coast Ceasefire Collapses (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Fighting-Spreads-as-Ivory-Coast-Ceasefire-Collapses-116888328.html)

BTW (anyone) has the humanitarian cost passed that of a single cruise missile yet?


For Stan, can you just imagine the fun time these two guys are having?

2 UN employees kidnapped by dangerous Young Patriot militia in Ivory Coast (http://www.newsok.com/2-un-employees-kidnapped-by-dangerous-young-patriot-militia-in-ivory-coast/article/feed/244717?custom_click=pod_headline_africa)

Stan
03-01-2011, 02:16 PM
... once again - surprise, surprise - the attempts at a negotiated settlement are failing. (when will they ever learn)

The Ivory Coast now slides towards civil war as the opportunity for swift, violent action has passed.

Fighting Spreads as Ivory Coast Ceasefire Collapses (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Fighting-Spreads-as-Ivory-Coast-Ceasefire-Collapses-116888328.html)

BTW (anyone) has the humanitarian cost passed that of a single cruise missile yet?


For Stan, can you just imagine the fun time these two guys are having?

2 UN employees kidnapped by dangerous Young Patriot militia in Ivory Coast (http://www.newsok.com/2-un-employees-kidnapped-by-dangerous-young-patriot-militia-in-ivory-coast/article/feed/244717?custom_click=pod_headline_africa)

JMA,
I understand they are Ukrainians. The young patriots will have their hands full with these guys :D

JMA
03-01-2011, 06:10 PM
JMA,
I understand they are Ukrainians. The young patriots will have their hands full with these guys :D

So was Gaddifi's "nurse". Seems he had his hands full also ;)

http://www.onlinejolie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Galyna-Kolotnytska-1-200x300.jpg

Stan
03-01-2011, 06:17 PM
So was Gaddifi's "nurse". Seems he had his hands full also ;)


Hey, I just saw her on the Estonian news and she has gained a few pounds since that photo :eek:

Galyna Kolotnytska (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/libya-muammar-gaddafi-nurse-ukraine), a Gaddafi confidante, arrived in Kiev on a Ukrainian defence ministry aircraft that evacuated 185 people

Ukrainian females are ... Whoa Nellie ! But, I suspect, the Ukranians in captivity are of the male version and will be trouble.

tequila
03-01-2011, 08:49 PM
Already released (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131175529464635.html).

JMA
03-04-2011, 06:53 AM
Ivory Coast headed for civil war (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ivory-coast-civil-war-20110304,0,5847652.story)

Stating the obvious...


A spasm of deadly violence in Ivory Coast, including the killings of six women who were shot Thursday as they demanded that the country's intransigent president step down, points to an irreversible slide back into civil war in the West African country, analysts say.

but the real problem lies here...


Ouattara controls the central bank, but operates out of a hotel. Gbagbo controls the army, but is facing difficulties paying the troops.

Now Stan will tell you what happens when the military stop being paid and how they get money...

Stan
03-04-2011, 06:16 PM
Now Stan will tell you what happens when the military stop being paid and how they get money...

JMA,
Do you mean the chain of events that lead to a full blown civil war, or, what basically happens on payday with a social upheaval :confused:

The President starts by buying tons of paper money from Germany (the money being worthless compared to the printing and transportation costs), flies it directly to the Presidential palace where several pallets are off-loaded and then on to the capital where the base commanders are instructed to divi out the cash.

The base commanders have several parties and spend half the wages before giving their lieutenants the remainder. They in turn have parties and give the remainder to the sergeants. At that point, little is left to the armed and hungry troops.

It’s now about the 5th of the month. :rolleyes:

A 114 command post rolls up in front of the bank and unceremoniously unloads a box .50 cal on the bank. The French Ambassador witnesses the entire event from the 7th floor across the street and the gunner wheels the M2 around and sprays the building with a new box of .50. The Ambassador’s body guard drops to the floor and the Ambassador takes a round through the chest and dies before hitting the carpet. (Days later the French govt would apologize for the Ambassador being in the wrong place at the wrong time).

Meanwhile across the boulevard at the USA Embassy a M151 jeep screams by and from my window I hear “ding.. ding.. ding metallic sound” bouncing over the fence into the courtyard and, as I count “one thousand one, one thousand two… I hit the carpet and BOOM, an M62 goes high order next to my boss’ car. :D

The troops armed with grenades and M16A1s go into the city and look for food, drink and women (without money).

Figure the rest out for yourself.

Scenario two: There is no payday and the base commander commandeers vehicles, soldiers and weapons, and, an upheaval starts from the military base to where the foreigners live.

This scenario is dependent on how much booze and food there is along the way. We won’t discuss what happens to women from ages 12 to 80 along the way…. Safe bet for calculating armageddon was 3 to 4 days for an evacuation of all foreigners.

Once you’ve done this 4 times, it actually gets easier to gauge how much time and luck you have.:cool:

JMA
03-04-2011, 07:17 PM
JMA,
Do you mean the chain of events that lead to a full blown civil war, or, what basically happens on payday with a social upheaval :confused:

The President starts by buying tons of paper money from Germany (the money being worthless compared to the printing and transportation costs), flies it directly to the Presidential palace where several pallets are off-loaded and then on to the capital where the base commanders are instructed to divi out the cash.

The base commanders have several parties and spend half the wages before giving their lieutenants the remainder. They in turn have parties and give the remainder to the sergeants. At that point, little is left to the armed and hungry troops.

It’s now about the 5th of the month. :rolleyes:

A 114 command post rolls up in front of the bank and unceremoniously unloads a box .50 cal on the bank. The French Ambassador witnesses the entire event from the 7th floor across the street and the gunner wheels the M2 around and sprays the building with a new box of .50. The Ambassador’s body guard drops to the floor and the Ambassador takes a round through the chest and dies before hitting the carpet. (Days later the French govt would apologize for the Ambassador being in the wrong place at the wrong time).

Meanwhile across the boulevard at the USA Embassy a M151 jeep screams by and from my window I hear “ding.. ding.. ding metallic sound” bouncing over the fence into the courtyard and, as I count “one thousand one, one thousand two… I hit the carpet and BOOM, an M62 goes high order next to my boss’ car. :D

The troops armed with grenades and M16A1s go into the city and look for food, drink and women (without money).

Figure the rest out for yourself.

Scenario two: There is no payday and the base commander commandeers vehicles, soldiers and weapons, and, an upheaval starts from the military base to where the foreigners live.

This scenario is dependent on how much booze and food there is along the way. We won’t discuss what happens to women from ages 12 to 80 along the way…. Safe bet for calculating armageddon was 3 to 4 days for an evacuation of all foreigners.

Once you’ve done this 4 times, it actually gets easier to gauge how much time and luck you have.:cool:

Exactly... thank you.

JMA
03-23-2011, 12:00 AM
435 dead, 500,000 displaced.

Still nothing to worry about... until the price of chocolate goes up that is...

M-A Lagrange
03-23-2011, 04:02 AM
JMA:

Don't worry, actually some people do care about what's going on there.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2011/open-letter-ecowas-cote-divoire.aspx

Lybia is apparently more sexy (;)) but the crisis in Ivory Coast is a precedent in Africa and specially concerning elections management. 2011 gonna be a busy year.

JMA
03-23-2011, 06:12 AM
JMA:

Don't worry, actually some people do care about what's going on there.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2011/open-letter-ecowas-cote-divoire.aspx

Lybia is apparently more sexy (;)) but the crisis in Ivory Coast is a precedent in Africa and specially concerning elections management. 2011 gonna be a busy year.

...but will there be any takers?

The opportunity for a low effort/risk exercise has passed. But there is still time for a demonstration of sincerity of some magnitude on the military units loyal to Gbagbo. The problem is that there are now gangs of thugs roaming the streets looking for mischief and are difficult to target other than with a suitable gunship ... or six.

Dayuhan
03-23-2011, 06:46 AM
435 dead, 500,000 displaced.

Still nothing to worry about... until the price of chocolate goes up that is...

Whose national interests, exactly, do you see being affected here?

JMA
03-23-2011, 01:58 PM
Whose national interests, exactly, do you see being affected here?

Sadly I just don't think you will understand but try to read this piece on humanitarian intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention) and see if the penny drops.


Some of humanitarian intervention's essential characteristics:

1. Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military forces as a central feature.

2. It is an intervention in the sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending military forces into the territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not committed an act of aggression against another state.

3. The intervention is in response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to states’ strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives.

Stan
03-23-2011, 04:52 PM
Sadly I just don't think you will understand but try to read this piece on humanitarian intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention) and see if the penny drops.

JMA,
What of our dumb-ass belief that we are somehow moral agents? Afghanistan was once (now twice) considered a disastrous mistake although most contend the invasions were to do good. In fact we could conclude our actions were based on misunderstanding and simply naiveté.

Sustaining noble intent has become impossible ;)

Dayuhan
03-23-2011, 09:16 PM
Sadly I just don't think you will understand but try to read this piece on humanitarian intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention) and see if the penny drops.

I know what humanitarian intervention is. The question asked involved national interest, which is not the same thing.

Humanitarian interventions don't involve pennies dropping, they involve large numbers of dollars dropping. We haven't got that many dollars any more, especially given the number of messed up places in the world.

It is not the responsibility of the US to protect and defend everyone, everywhere, all the time, and its not in the interests of the US to try.

JMA
03-24-2011, 06:07 AM
I know what humanitarian intervention is. The question asked involved national interest, which is not the same thing.

IMHO interventions on humanitarian grounds are as justifiable as those in the so-called "national interest".


Humanitarian interventions don't involve pennies dropping, they involve large numbers of dollars dropping. We haven't got that many dollars any more, especially given the number of messed up places in the world.

It is not the responsibility of the US to protect and defend everyone, everywhere, all the time, and its not in the interests of the US to try.

I have also voiced a personal opinion here that to exclude options of interventions based on humanitarian grounds is a dehumanising decision.

So by implication then I believe that humanitarian interventions are in fact in any country's national interest.

If you personally have a different view then that's fine.

JMA
03-24-2011, 06:29 AM
JMA,
What of our dumb-ass belief that we are somehow moral agents? Afghanistan was once (now twice) considered a disastrous mistake although most contend the invasions were to do good. In fact we could conclude our actions were based on misunderstanding and simply naiveté.

Sustaining noble intent has become impossible ;)

Stan, I don't have a problem with the US being moral agents or being guided by noble intent. It is laudable.

Lets take Afghanistan. The first phase of that exercise (starting October 7, 2001) was fine and it worked well.

Then instead of saying to the Afghans "We are off now but will be back with more of the same if you give us any more trouble" the US allowed itself to get sucked into Afghanistan long term through the UNSC ISAF resolution... and the rest is history.

So Stan the Afghanistan intervention was not the same in most respects IMO. I suggest that the danger in Libya is that the current US Administration will try to over-compensate for the errors of the past and damage the medium term prospects for a "liberated" Libya as a result.

I would suggest that there are always US citizens (in one form or tuther) that understand fully what the issues in any given country are. The big question is whether they are listened to or do the "smart guys" at State and in the WH just ignore the obvious value of their input. Then once the Pentagon gets the go ahead to deploy do they round up all the best sources or do they just go in blind?

Good intentions can be damaged through poor execution.

M-A Lagrange
03-24-2011, 06:30 AM
Humanitarian interventions, at least the non military ones, are not that expensive compare to war.
If you take the time to look closely to the figures, what will cost Ivory Coast? May be 1 billion in total for 1 to 3 years. This includes bilateral direct aid to governement (military, governance...) and pure humanitarian aid from USAID and OFDA.
If you compare the figures with what has been spent on 1 day in Irak of Afghanistan... Then you realise that humanitarian interventions are cheap.

Anyways, Ivory Coast is creating a precedent in many ways. Currently working on election process in another african country, Ivory Coast as an exemple of how to size power or as a disaster or of what should never happen is in all mouthes. I personnaly think that there was no way to solve the problem with another solution than ending the civil war. War need a winner and a looser. And in that case it had to be a clear cut.
What is interresting is that because nobody took a strong stand in IC you still have crazy guys on that continent who believe they can do what ever they want, as G in Lybia, bob in Zim...

I can understand the will of the US military to not be dragged into what ever silly small war every time you have a crazy dictator but I am actually surprised by the strong back clash of isolationism fashion we, by we I mean the non US citizen, see at the moment.
Somehow, I would not be surprised that it back fire in a strong way on the african continent on US interrest (which do exist by the way).

JMA
03-24-2011, 12:44 PM
Humanitarian interventions, at least the non military ones, are not that expensive compare to war.
If you take the time to look closely to the figures, what will cost Ivory Coast? May be 1 billion in total for 1 to 3 years. This includes bilateral direct aid to governement (military, governance...) and pure humanitarian aid from USAID and OFDA.
If you compare the figures with what has been spent on 1 day in Irak of Afghanistan... Then you realise that humanitarian interventions are cheap.

Again my point is that the earlier you act and the earlier you get people on the ground the easier it is to contain the problem. There is no excuse on this one the world saw it coming.


Anyways, Ivory Coast is creating a precedent in many ways. Currently working on election process in another african country, Ivory Coast as an exemple of how to size power or as a disaster or of what should never happen is in all mouthes. I personnaly think that there was no way to solve the problem with another solution than ending the civil war. War need a winner and a looser. And in that case it had to be a clear cut.
What is interresting is that because nobody took a strong stand in IC you still have crazy guys on that continent who believe they can do what ever they want, as G in Lybia, bob in Zim...

And there are still African leaders who believe that they are above the law and can do as they like (as there are in other parts of the world). I ask what is the deterrent against anyone considering attempting a Kenya/Zimbabwe/Ivory Coast move? None really significant so we must accept the possibility of it happening again and again.


I can understand the will of the US military to not be dragged into what ever silly small war every time you have a crazy dictator but I am actually surprised by the strong back clash of isolationism fashion we, by we I mean the non US citizen, see at the moment.
Somehow, I would not be surprised that it back fire in a strong way on the african continent on US interrest (which do exist by the way).

Well there seems to be more panic around SWC than I hear from where it matters but yes it appears that the US is close to getting max'd out on any intervention be it humanitarian or other. Pity they don't think it necessary to give the world notice that the want out.

With this fatigue from effort (with sadly a lot of failures mixed in) I read a growing feeling of indifference to human suffering which is a slippery slope down a path to a dehumanised condition. I don't believe the majority of US citizens want to turn their backs on human suffering wherever it might be but through the incompetence of successive politicians and sadly also some pretty basic military errors they have not been rewarded with that feel-good result after a job well done.

There is of course a better way out of all this but it may be too late as the US may well have already turned away...

This quote (http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/people/bystand.htm) stays with me forever:


Indifference is not so much a gesture of looking away--of choosing to be passive--as it is an active disinclination to feel. Indifference shuts down the humane, and does it deliberately, with all the strength deliberateness demands. Indifference is as determined--and as forcefully muscular--as any blow.

M-A Lagrange
03-25-2011, 02:38 PM
Once again, the UN SC is meeting on Ivory Coast.
From what I heard the position of western powers has not changed: Bagbo is not legitimately and even less legaly president.
ICG issued another letter to the UNSC:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2011/open-letter-unsc-cote-divoire.aspx

Let see what will happen

jmm99
03-25-2011, 04:17 PM
The Libyan intervention is approved by a plurality of US likely voters, 45% Support U.S. Military Action in Libya, 34% Oppose, 21% Undecided (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2011/45_support_u_s_military_action_in_libya_34_oppose_ 21_undecided), with a huge majority of the Political Class supporting it:


Eighty-two percent (82%) of the Political Class support Obama's Libya decision, compared to 39% of Mainstream voters. Sixty-five percent (65%) of those in the Political Class feel Congress' approval was not necessary, but 56% of Mainstream voters disagree.

Explanation of the Poltical Class and Mainstream below.

The result among likely voters comes despite this result, 28% Say Libya Important To U.S. National Security, 42% Disagree (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2011/28_say_libya_important_to_u_s_national_security_42 _disagree); but again, the Political Class diverges big time:


However, there’s a much wider gap between the Political Class and Mainstream voters on these questions. Sixty percent (60%) of those in the Political Class say there is a vital U.S. national security interest in Libya. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Mainstream voters disagree.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Political Class voters support U.S. involvement in conflicts like Libya for humanitarian reasons even when there is no direct threat to U.S. national security. Fifty-four percent (54%) of those in the Mainstream oppose involvement in situations like that.

We see similar divergence in the Right Direction or Wrong Track - 23% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track), where the most likely voter numbers (23%-71%-6%) reflect more Mainstream than Political Class:


Sixty-one percent (61%) of Political Class voters believe the United States is heading in the right direction. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Mainstream voters think the country is going down the wrong track.

This result is close to the results from August 2010, 67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/67_of_political_class_say_u_s_heading_in_right_dir ection_84_of_mainstream_disagrees), where the questions re: Mainstream and Poltical Class are explained:


The Political Class Index is based on three questions. All three clearly address populist tendencies and perspectives, all three have strong public support, and, for all three questions, the populist perspective is shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and those not affiliated with either of the major parties. We have asked the questions before, and the results change little whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the government.

In many cases, the gap between the Mainstream view and the Political Class is larger than the gap between Mainstream Republicans and Mainstream Democrats.

The questions used to calculate the Index are:

-- Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?

-- Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?

-- Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?

To create a scale, each response earns a plus 1 for the populist answer, a minus 1 for the political class answer, and a 0 for not sure.

Those who score 2 or higher are considered a populist or part of the Mainstream. Those who score -2 or lower are considered to be aligned with the Political Class. Those who score +1 or -1 are considered leaners in one direction or the other.

In practical terms, if someone is classified with the Mainstream, they agree with the Mainstream view on at least two of the three questions and don’t agree with the Political Class on any.

Initially, Rasmussen Reports labeled the groups Populist and Political Class. However, despite the many news stories referring to populist anger over bailouts and other government actions, the labels created confusion for some. In particular, some equated populist attitudes with the views of the late-19th century Populist Party. To avoid that confusion and since a majority clearly hold skeptical views about the ruling elites, we now label the groups Mainstream and Political Class.

So, worry not, those of interventionist bent - the US Political Class is still very much with you.

Regards

Mike

Ken White
03-25-2011, 05:33 PM
That being the opinions of the political class...

The "vital national political interest" aspect in particular.

On the Libya thread, I commented to JMA that I had difficulty understanding why our 'decision makers' ignored the advice of many other politicians and of the armed forces. These figures show me a 'what' of sorts but I still cannot fathom the 'why'...

Thanks for posting that.

P.S.

I trust your ambient norms are now above 40°. :wry:

Stan
03-25-2011, 05:36 PM
P.S.

I trust your ambient norms are now above 40°. :wry:

Better not be---, it's friggin freezing over here STILL. Mike is a Finn and relatively acclimatized ;)

Ken White
03-25-2011, 06:19 PM
Better not be---, it's friggin freezing over here STILL. Mike is a Finn and relatively acclimatized ;)I got a fraudulent charge on a credit card made from Estonia -- seriously -- someone buying blankets -- also seriously... :eek:

So now I gotta memorize a new number. Between weapons serial nrs, Socials, Army and Marine serial numbers, credit cards, insurance policies, etc. it is really getting crowded in my bourbon befuddled sawdust pile... :D

Keep on keepin' on... ;)

jmm99
03-26-2011, 12:47 AM
we've had a mild winter - not too Finnish. Although I did eat late lunch - early supper at the Kaleva Cafe (http://www.yelp.com/biz/kaleva-cafe-hancock) (which is next door to my office). ;)

Terveiset

Mikko

JMA
03-26-2011, 07:13 AM
I trust your ambient norms are now above 40°. :wry:

Question not aimed at me I know but...

Best decision my family made was in 1793 to leave that frozen mud island in the North.

Today in Durban we have:

Max: 26 C - 78.8 F
Min: 23 C - 73.4 F (night)
Wind: 6 mph
Humidity: 79%

Never need a heater any time of the year.
Need (only because I'm getting old) a fan about 10 times a year.

JMA
03-26-2011, 07:41 AM
Once again, the UN SC is meeting on Ivory Coast.
From what I heard the position of western powers has not changed: Bagbo is not legitimately and even less legaly president.
ICG issued another letter to the UNSC:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2011/open-letter-unsc-cote-divoire.aspx

Let see what will happen

As I understand it they are merely seeking sanctions on Gbagbo. How on earth will this stop the slide towards civil war?

Wait a minute... only one million internally displaced and 450 killed in the capital and 200 odd reported from the rural West... nothing to worry about - sorry for being alarmist. (sarcasm)

If the US is not interested they should at least support 1973 type resolution authorising France (and Nigeria and oither West Africans) to do what it takes to prevent a slide into civil war... without the no boots on the ground restriction.

Will it happen? No. The one thing the US needs less than another small war is to wake up one morning and find the world no loner needs the US (and the money it borrows from China).

Stan
03-26-2011, 07:50 AM
I suggest that the danger in Libya is that the current US Administration will try to over-compensate for the errors of the past and damage the medium term prospects for a "liberated" Libya as a result.

JMA,
I certainly agree with you there. A few more Tomahawks than you or I bargained for, when all we wanted was three for the Ivory Coast. :rolleyes:


I would suggest that there are always US citizens (in one form or tuther) that understand fully what the issues in any given country are. The big question is whether they are listened to or do the "smart guys" at State and in the WH just ignore the obvious value of their input. Then once the Pentagon gets the go ahead to deploy do they round up all the best sources or do they just go in blind? .

Other than some satellite imagery and 20 year-old intel, we flew in blind !
Indeed we have people all over the world with a wealth of country-specific knowledge and good old knowhow (which, often includes knowing-what and know-why). What really puzzles me is we somehow think we are smarter than the COL Gs and Gbagbos of the world and apply our our pathetic reliance on playing fair while others don’t. Don’t get me started on my State Dept. experiences.



Good intentions can be damaged through poor execution.

Now what I’m going to say will really get me hammered as evil (again) !
The US Military is not a humanitarian organization. We can certainly gear our troops and use of equipment to perform a limited role, but it is not something most of us are professionally trained to do.

Even humanitarian demining has some unattainable expectations flawed from the very beginning with generalized text books in 26 languages and no real-world training.

To expect some profound outcome without a single casualty is naïve and plain old stupid.

JMA
03-26-2011, 09:31 AM
JMA,
I certainly agree with you there. A few more Tomahawks than you or I bargained for, when all we wanted was three for the Ivory Coast. :rolleyes:

There was a window of opportunity for action and it passed.

The best way to protect the Libyan civilians would have been and still is to hit the snake on the head (Gaddafi). More difficult to locate and target now. So who carries the responsibility for the deaths of Libyans at the hands of Gaddafi in the last month or so?

Then there is the fundamental difference in approach. A big military can pound an enemy into submission while a small military (or a large one which wants to leave a small footprint) will target the pressure points and go for the jugular.

The decision was made to take out all the air defences and whatever (which to be fair was what the world was told right up front before UNSC 1973 was passed). To the credit of those involved in these strikes (vast majority the US) the precision has been unprecedented. Truly magnificent to the extent that Gaddafi has been unable to produce the bodies of the civilians he claims were killed in these strikes.

So because the head-of-the-snake remains intact the killing of civilians continues. And the cost of the initial strikes were probably around $1billion which I presume the US will absorb.

There seems to be some confusion whether UNSC Res 1973 authorised the targeting of Gaddafi or not. I can understand civilian political confusion on the matter but in the military? Perhaps the Trojan House the politicians inserted into the US military (a brigade strength of lawyers) is again proving their worth.

Compared to a mountain of dead bodies and $1billion spent I suggest that a quick strike to the head of the snake was then and remains the best option.


Other than some satellite imagery and 20 year-old intel, we flew in blind !
Indeed we have people all over the world with a wealth of country-specific knowledge and good old knowhow (which, often includes knowing-what and know-why). What really puzzles me is we somehow think we are smarter than the COL Gs and Gbagbos of the world and apply our our pathetic reliance on playing fair while others don’t. Don’t get me started on my State Dept. experiences.

Am I to assume then that neither State not the Pentagon draw on this local knowledge of US citizens? If this is the case then why deploy these people to all these exotic places in the first place? It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.


Now what I’m going to say will really get me hammered as evil (again) !

Surely not possible in a country that champions free speech?


The US Military is not a humanitarian organization. We can certainly gear our troops and use of equipment to perform a limited role, but it is not something most of us are professionally trained to do.

Even humanitarian demining has some unattainable expectations flawed from the very beginning with generalized text books in 26 languages and no real-world training.

To expect some profound outcome without a single casualty is naïve and plain old stupid.

That is true and that is why humanitarian demining is carried out by contractors.

In the case of the military component of a humanitarian intervention there are probably two or more phases. The first will be the need to stop the violence and in the places you and I know that means by using maximum violence. Once the perpetrators have been crushed you can swing over to the second phase and introduce different troops trained in civic action and all that stuff to take over and keep the peace and protect the civilian authority while they rebuild the place. The peacemakers go home after phase one. Not too many twenty-something year olds who can switch from killer-mode to kissing babies in an instant.

While I have little good to say about politicians in any county it must be said that the respective militaries should have wised up to this requirement and taken the necessary steps to cater for it by now.

M-A Lagrange
03-26-2011, 09:34 AM
JMA:

The problematic in Ivory Coast is biased by the colonial past and use the US did of it to support Bagbo in the early stages. The French president did not ease the things when he made his allocution in Dakar saying African man have not yet entered history. (What an &*&^%$# !!!:mad:).

Now you have a situation where use of force by people who have a good knowhow will be problematic as stigmatized as colonial enterprise in Africa. And African nation who have a decent knowhow are not willing because it will beak the AU unity (I am so sad if it happens :rolleyes:).

South Africa tried to come in but that did not work because one party did not want to.
Comes a point where you have to let the things go and limit your engagement in patching the wounds. It's sad for the people but it's also the awful reality.

Also, I have concerns about the African solution to African problem policy. Liberia was and remain a good example of how things started with good will at the highest level turn into the worst nightmare ever.

Concerning humanitarian action, I would be even quicker to get upset than Stan. The only level things can be (and are) blurred is the financial one. On the ground soldiers do their job and humanitarian theirs. It's good to keep it like this. Actually makes it safer for everybody.

In the mean time, Ivorians have to solve the problem. And in Ivory Coast, Bagbo does not have any air power anymore since he bombed a french camp. :cool:
If he uses tanks for crowd control: then it will be another issue.
Otherwise, the alliance has enough military equipment and training to react and place their man at the top. May be pushing some in the regular army to turn their jacket as we say in french could be a good initiative.

M-A Lagrange
03-26-2011, 09:38 AM
In the case of the military component of a humanitarian intervention there are probably two or more phases. The first will be the need to stop the violence and in the places you and I know that means by using maximum violence. Once the perpetrators have been crushed you can swing over to the second phase and introduce different troops trained in civic action and all that stuff to take over and keep the peace and protect the civilian authority while they rebuild the place. The peacemakers go home after phase one. Not too many twenty-something year olds who can switch from killer-mode to kissing babies in an instant.

In my personnal experience, did try this in DRC through UN.
Full spectrum failure!
The pb is that no one is really keen in investing in phase 2 and even less in phase 1 on African soil, including African powers.
The main pb is to find an African army that is not committed to take advantage of the situation to do business first. ;)

tequila
03-26-2011, 02:27 PM
Cote d'Ivoire: Our Turn to Flee (http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=92293)


ABIDJAN, 25 March 2011 (IRIN) - Rachel* is saving up to go to Ghana, pinning her hopes on a friend living in the Ghanaian border town of Elubo, three hours’ drive east of Abidjan.

Rachel told IRIN that life had become intolerable. She had landed a job in early March, offering take-home pay of FCFA8,000 (about US$18) for an evening shift in an up-market bar. But the owners announced a few days later they could not pay staff. Liquidity problems had deteriorated with the closure of most of Abidjan’s banks. Business was falling off badly as customers faded away. Rachel’s job lasted just a couple of days.

“I went with some of the other people being laid off to try for jobs elsewhere, but there was nothing. There is no money out there and everyone has bills to pay: electricity, water, food, rent. It’s impossible”.

Rachel said she could cope with the disappointment of another job gone, but was tired of the gunfire at night. Until recently she had lived in Angré, a neighbourhood that had been relatively calm, but backs on to the southern fringe of Abobo, scene of the worst violence in Abidjan since the post-election crisis began in December 2010.

“I have visited Abobo and seen corpses on the streets,” Rachel explained. “No one should be made to see that sort of thing. Do they want people to die like animals? You kill everyone and you have no one left to govern.”

...

Interesting profile of how violence combined with worsening economic conditions driven by the instability is pushing people to flee Abidjan.

JMA
03-26-2011, 03:29 PM
In my personnal experience, did try this in DRC through UN.
Full spectrum failure!
The pb is that no one is really keen in investing in phase 2 and even less in phase 1 on African soil, including African powers.
The main pb is to find an African army that is not committed to take advantage of the situation to do business first. ;)

Like in Somalia African countries will send cannon fodder in if they get paid in US$ to do so and they then pay their soldiers in local currency. Where the hard currency ends up is anyones guess.

... what you correctly indicate as being the implementation problems with such an exercise is all the more reason to get in quick and neutralise the threat before it gains a momentum of its own. Kill the snake with a quick violent blow to the head.

ganulv
03-27-2011, 07:14 AM
As I understand it they are merely seeking sanctions on Gbagbo. How on earth will this stop the slide towards civil war?

My better half has done a couple of stints of long-term ethnographic research in Côte d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso so I have a little knowledge by proxy (and I spent a month in Burkina with her last summer). Trying to wait Gbagbo out seems to me completely and utterly prudent. The recent violence as I understand it is not a slide towards civil war but rather the disruption of a ceasefire. Gbagbo’ machinations are related to broader social tensions with a time depth of decades. Aggressively pushing him out of the picture will not ameliorate those tensions in any way but a heavy hand could well contribute to a complete abandonment of the ceasefire.

Libya and Côte d'Ivoire are apples and oranges. In the Ivorian case intertwined issues of citizenship, religion, and ethnicity are as far as I can tell much more relevant to the conflict than in the Libyan case. There is a robust civil society in Côte d'Ivoire while civil society in Libya would seem to be pretty much absent. And the Ivorian rebels possess some basic soldiering skills (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12805176). I suspect that this fact has actually contributed to the fact that the civil war has not fully reignited at this point. Unlike the Libyans they seem able to formulate some realistic expectations of the odds facing them should the conflict escalate.

JMA
03-27-2011, 01:43 PM
JMA:

The problematic in Ivory Coast is biased by the colonial past and use the US did of it to support Bagbo in the early stages. The French president did not ease the things when he made his allocution in Dakar saying African man have not yet entered history. (What an &*&^%$# !!!:mad:).

I'm interested to hear the French perspective on this. If I recall back to the Civil War 2002 onwards the French intervention was in the main effective. This because both sides blamed the French for being partisan - which is a good indicator.

The British get scared off easily by allegations that they are trying to reassert their colonial power (see Zimbabwe) but how sensitive are the French on this? It now seems that the US is now also super sensitive to allegations of neo-colonialism. Maybe we will have wait a decade or so for the Chinese to have so much to lose (read national interest) that they start to intervene to ensure stability.


Now you have a situation where use of force by people who have a good knowhow will be problematic as stigmatized as colonial enterprise in Africa. And African nation who have a decent knowhow are not willing because it will beak the AU unity (I am so sad if it happens :rolleyes:).

Look one must accept these idiotic claims to surface (because they have been used and worked well in the past). Take Gaddafi's playing to the "crusader" gallery. I believe if you get the aim right and you stick to it (you will know this because both sides will accuse you of bias) and don't stay too long you (the French) will be OK.

The lession learned of how not to do it (from Obama in Libya) is not to play the "reluctant bride" but rather get in quick, do the business and in this case hand over to Nigeria (ECOWAS) than adopt a low profile.


South Africa tried to come in but that did not work because one party did not want to.
Comes a point where you have to let the things go and limit your engagement in patching the wounds. It's sad for the people but it's also the awful reality.

Well is South Africa an honest broker? There is no history of that so far too early to try to push South Africa as a diplomatic solution. SA can offer Gbagbo refuge and a pension (like they did for Aristide) beyond that we have very little to offer... (sadly).


Also, I have concerns about the African solution to African problem policy. Liberia was and remain a good example of how things started with good will at the highest level turn into the worst nightmare ever.

Of course that is a nonsense and until we have a US president or European leader with balls nothing is going to change. What the will keep saying is you fund the whole exercise and we will do it the African way (and we all know what that means).


Concerning humanitarian action, I would be even quicker to get upset than Stan. The only level things can be (and are) blurred is the financial one. On the ground soldiers do their job and humanitarian theirs. It's good to keep it like this. Actually makes it safer for everybody.

I believe that when soldiers try to get involved in the actual humanitarian process that is where the problem starts. Soldiers make the peace, then keep the peace and provided protection and security for the humanitarian workers who would be UN or NGO people. ISAF has got this badly wrong in Afghanistan where they send you officers into villages iof a culture they will never being to comprehend in their time in-country to engage with the village elders... and in so doing show cultures the ultimate disrespect. Every 6 months another set of kids come along and ask them the same questions. What would the feeling be if an occupying force sent a twenty something kid to deal with the local town council of elected community "elders"?


In the mean time, Ivorians have to solve the problem. And in Ivory Coast, Bagbo does not have any air power anymore since he bombed a french camp. :cool:

The French reacted correctly then and I can guarantee you that Gbagbo will think twice before he puts in an airstrike on the French again. The UN peacekeepers are vulnerable though. I believe he has a gunships (from Belarus supposedly) - U.N. Says Belarus Sent Attack Helicopters to Ivory Coast (http://www.data.minsk.by/belarusnews/022011/412.html)


If he uses tanks for crowd control: then it will be another issue.
Otherwise, the alliance has enough military equipment and training to react and place their man at the top. May be pushing some in the regular army to turn their jacket as we say in french could be a good initiative.

A million displaced people, 650-700 killed, and both sides putting together militias presents a bleak picture of the situation. Sad situation. Now the question must be asked how the UN let this situation slip away? The US it seems is not up for the challenge so to me it seems it lies with the French supported by Nigeria. (Now that's a new alliance)

Stan
03-27-2011, 03:58 PM
The decision was made to take out all the air defences and whatever (which to be fair was what the world was told right up front before UNSC 1973 was passed).

There seems to be some confusion whether UNSC Res 1973 authorised the targeting of Gaddafi or not.

Not sure how outright killing COL G was part of the resolution to create a no fly zone. I think there’s sufficient evidence of what happens to a military commander who thinks and does what’s best while never being authorized to do so :wry:


Am I to assume then that neither State not the Pentagon draw on this local knowledge of US citizens? If this is the case then why deploy these people to all these exotic places in the first place? It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.

To some extent the Pentagon does draw on us and the State Dept has a system in place in each country that allows those to be part of an emergency system. As far as those exotic places and the system that sends us there… you got me ! Only the FAO program seems to have a proven track record but not a clear record on future use of assets.


Surely not possible in a country that champions free speech?

That was actually a European that told me I was evil based on what I thought was just a question (which, has yet to be answered).



What other focus should a military have other than victory ?



After five attempts - all deleted by myself because they would yield infractions - I think I can write this:
You are in really, really evil company with this attitude and just earned a huge load of disrespect by writing that line.

Enough said for now !


That is true and that is why humanitarian demining is carried out by contractors.

Not exactly JMA. Most of the contracts for demining are just cheap and end up with many untrained locals. Similar to Africa and Cambodia, the local governments severely impact the programs and in some cases refuse assistance (not enough or no kickbacks). Contractors and locals have neither ability nor right to question the local government. Military demining is not ideal either. In cases like Georgia with demilitarized zones and availability of troops it’s just not practical.



In the case of the military component of a humanitarian intervention there are probably two or more phases. The first will be the need to stop the violence and in the places you and I know that means by using maximum violence. Once the perpetrators have been crushed you can swing over to the second phase and introduce different troops trained in civic action and all that stuff to take over and keep the peace and protect the civilian authority while they rebuild the place. The peacemakers go home after phase one. Not too many twenty-something year olds who can switch from killer-mode to kissing babies in an instant.


To some extent I agree with that. We have to eliminate the threat before we physically demine. That threat part is never defined and the way to deal with it barely explained.


While I have little good to say about politicians in any county it must be said that the respective militaries should have wised up to this requirement and taken the necessary steps to cater for it by now.

Hmmm, the politicians are going to listen to the military ? :eek:

M-A Lagrange
03-27-2011, 05:58 PM
[QUOTE=JMA;118331]I'm interested to hear the French perspective on this. If I recall back to the Civil War 2002 onwards the French intervention was in the main effective. This because both sides blamed the French for being partisan - which is a good indicator.

The British get scared off easily by allegations that they are trying to reassert their colonial power (see Zimbabwe) but how sensitive are the French on this? It now seems that the US is now also super sensitive to allegations of neo-colonialism. Maybe we will have wait a decade or so for the Chinese to have so much to lose (read national interest) that they start to intervene to ensure stability.

About the Sarkosy speetch? All of us living in Africa have been up set (for the nice one).
Saying that we defend our colonial pre-carre? Well, it would be hypocrit to say French government does not do so. The France-Afrique (na frique= France the money dealer; a word play from Bongo father if I recall well) died, long live the king!
More seriously, France is France and is still trying to keep a strong hand in Africa. Do African want it is another question.
They probably will cry for help the day chinese soldiers will hit their ground to establish "stability". Personnaly, I am not that in hurry to see it come.




Look one must accept these idiotic claims to surface (because they have been used and worked well in the past). Take Gaddafi's playing to the "crusader" gallery. I believe if you get the aim right and you stick to it (you will know this because both sides will accuse you of bias) and don't stay too long you (the French) will be OK.

The lession learned of how not to do it (from Obama in Libya) is not to play the "reluctant bride" but rather get in quick, do the business and in this case hand over to Nigeria (ECOWAS) than adopt a low profile.

Are you impying that SA wants to hand over its African Super Power position to Nigeria? Are you sure that's a good idea?


Well is South Africa an honest broker? There is no history of that so far too early to try to push South Africa as a diplomatic solution. SA can offer Gbagbo refuge and a pension (like they did for Aristide) beyond that we have very little to offer... (sadly).

MBeki tried and failed but anyone else would have failed. Honesty has nothing to do with that. Gbagbo is the problem: he is the symbol of the african bias of democracy is a colonial stuff not made for Africa. (I just hate that posture from african leaders and military staff)
African people have the right to live with legitimate governments that listen to them. (My personnal cross...:D)


Of course that is a nonsense and until we have a US president or European leader with balls nothing is going to change. What the will keep saying is you fund the whole exercise and we will do it the African way (and we all know what that means).
Why is the west still the only solution? Because of above!


I believe that when soldiers try to get involved in the actual humanitarian process that is where the problem starts. Soldiers make the peace, then keep the peace and provided protection and security for the humanitarian workers who would be UN or NGO people. ISAF has got this badly wrong in Afghanistan where they send you officers into villages iof a culture they will never being to comprehend in their time in-country to engage with the village elders... and in so doing show cultures the ultimate disrespect. Every 6 months another set of kids come along and ask them the same questions. What would the feeling be if an occupying force sent a twenty something kid to deal with the local town council of elected community "elders"?
I believe we all agree


The French reacted correctly then and I can guarantee you that Gbagbo will think twice before he puts in an airstrike on the French again. The UN peacekeepers are vulnerable though. I believe he has a gunships (from Belarus supposedly) - U.N. Says Belarus Sent Attack Helicopters to Ivory Coast (http://www.data.minsk.by/belarusnews/022011/412.html)

Then lets get a resolution for a no sailing zone!


A million displaced people, 650-700 killed, and both sides putting together militias presents a bleak picture of the situation. Sad situation. Now the question must be asked how the UN let this situation slip away? The US it seems is not up for the challenge so to me it seems it lies with the French supported by Nigeria. (Now that's a new alliance)

Actually easier to say than to do.
In your post, I can read a will of disengagement from SA in the African pb. Is the situation in SADC that bad? Is the Mandela legacy in this organisation that bad?

ganulv
03-27-2011, 08:16 PM
If I recall back to the Civil War 2002 onwards the French intervention was in the main effective.

Not as effective as the national side’s qualification for the World Cup finals tournament (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,417940,00.html). In the courte durée the intervention kept the belligerents separated but we’re now seeing just how much it seems to have effected the underlying problems.


The French reacted correctly then and I can guarantee you that Gbagbo will think twice before he puts in an airstrike on the French again.

The French reaction strikes me as justified but then again I don’t know enough about the laws and customs of war to actually have an informed opinion. But given that in the wake of the retaliation French expats had to be evacuated from the country at government expense and that the French military ended up killing at least twenty people in street riots facilitated by Gbagbo’s thugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congr%C3%A8s_Panafricaine_des_Jeunes_Patriotes) I don’t know that I think they acted correctly. I acknowledge that hindsight is 20/20, but in any case, that’s a taste of what will occur if the French and/or other Europeans decide to strong arm Gbagbo offstage and the reason I feel the international response has been responsible to this point.

jmm99
03-27-2011, 09:39 PM
The 2004 French–Ivorian clashes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivorian-French_violence,_2004) involved several incidents - the French destruction of the Ivorian Air Force being the key point. The "French Connection" in Côte d'Ivoire translates to Operation Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unicorn), part of the UNOCI mandate (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unoci/mandate.shtml).

While the UNOCI venture is usually described as a "peacekeeping" mission, it is in fact based on Chapter VII - peace enforcement - and provides an "all necessary means" mandate. That, of course, is the same language as used in the current Libyan mandate.

The 2004 specifics in Resolution 1528 (2004) (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1528(2004)) re: the French forces (since renewed and extended) provided (emphasis added):


16. Authorizes for a period of 12 months from 4 April 2004 the French forces to use all necessary means in order to support UNOCI in accordance with the agreement to be reached between UNOCI and the French authorities, and in particular to:

– Contribute to the general security of the area of activity of the international forces,

– Intervene at the request of UNOCI in support of its elements whose security may be threatened,

– Intervene against belligerent actions, if the security conditions so require, outside the areas directly controlled by UNOCI,

– Help to protect civilians, in the deployment areas of their units;

The French actions were taken as an intervention against belligerent actions.

While some amount of retribution and reprobation undoubtedly underlay the French motives, the destruction of the Ivorian planes and occupation of airports are best justified by the principle of specific deterrence. That is, removal of the threat (evidenced by the attack) by removing the means for future attacks of the same kind.

That response (involving deadly force) is justified under the Laws of War (as accepted by the US, and apparently France in this incident), but not under the Rule of Law.

Regards

Mike

M-A Lagrange
03-28-2011, 05:12 AM
Mike,

Your legal insides are, as always, much valuable. In the particular case of French military intervention in Ivory Coast, you have to distinguish 2 elements: the UN intervention and the French intervention.

UN intervention goes as you described it. It's partly part of the problem: when you stop a war without winner, the side feeling they are cheated always makes troubles. In that case Gbagbo.

French intervention was motivated by the threat Gbagbo caused on french citizens. Do not forget that first he sent his youth against the french military camp and then, as he couldn't take it, against french civilians. France reacted on the bases: you kill (or intended to kill) my people: I will protect them with deadly violence. A fair, natural and legaly approved response. That's for the 1st french intervention, before Licorne, that lead to the dead of 20 Gbagbo sympatisers.
On the bombing: Gbagbo voluntarely targetted a french military camp part of the UN mission. The reaction was part of a normal and fully legal motivated retaliation response to an act of war against a UN mandated military force. My point being that it's not because you are part of the UN that you have to let crazy guys do what ever they want because they appologies. Here in fact the question is political rather than legal as the UN do recognise the right of selfdefense for the blue elmets.
Was the response deadlier than the threat? I personnaly do not think so. As you just said,

While some amount of retribution and reprobation undoubtedly underlay the French motives, the destruction of the Ivorian planes and occupation of airports are best justified by the principle of specific deterrence. That is, removal of the threat (evidenced by the attack) by removing the means for future attacks of the same kind.

On the question of rule of law, I would be less specific than you. But I'm not objective: i'm french.

M-A Lagrange
03-28-2011, 07:48 AM
Can't remember if I saw it on the threat. In case of:

Resolution of the Authority of Heads of State and Government of Ecowas on the Situation in Cote d'Ivoire
25 March 2011
________________________________________
Abuja - Nigeria — The Authority of the ECOWAS Heads of State and Government, meeting in Abuja from 23 to 24 March 2011 at its 39th Ordinary Summit;
Having exhaustively reviewed the rapidly deteriorating political, security and humanitarian situation in Côte d'Ivoire provoked by the disputed run-off presidential election of 28 November 2010;
Firmly condemning the wanton violence against civilians leading to unacceptable loss of life and property;
Deploring the deliberate targeting of innocent Ivorians, ECOWAS citizens and other foreigners, and also the attacks on personnel of the UN Mission in Cote d'Ivoire;
Deeply concerned by the large waves of refugees fleeing across borders and the swelling colonies of internally displaced persons;
Convinced that the current situation is a direct consequence of the refusal of the out-going President, Mr. Laurent Gbagbo, to cede power to Mr. Alassane Ouattara, the universally recognized winner of the 28 November 2010 election;
Recognizing that the crisis in Cote d'Ivoire has now become a regional humanitarian emergency; Recalling the Decisions of the Extraordinary Summits of the Authority of 7 and 24 December 2010, particularly regarding paragraph 10 of the latter, which states: "In the event that Mr. Gbagbo fails to heed (the) immutable demand of ECOWAS (to hand over power), the Community would be left with no alternative but to take other measures, including the use of legitimate force, to achieve the goals of the Ivorian people";
Bearing in mind that these Decisions have been endorsed by the African Union and the United Nations; Firmly decides that the time has come to enforce its Decisions of 7 and 24 December 2010 in order to protect life and to ensure the transfer of the reins of power to Mr. Alassane Ouattara without any further delay.
To this end, requests the UN Security Council to authorise the immediate implementation of the Authority Decisions of December 2010. In this context, requests the United Nations Security Council to strengthen the mandate of the United Nations' Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), enabling the Mission to use all necessary means to protect life and property, and to facilitate the immediate transfer of power to Mr. Alassane Ouattara;
Also requests the United Nations Security Council to adopt more stringent international targeted sanctions against Mr. Laurent Gbagbo and his associates;
Directs the President of the ECOWAS Commission to explore all avenues of providing the Government of Mr. Alassane Ouattara all the necessary legal and diplomatic means to exercise its authority, including admitting the Government to all meetings of ECOWAS. Urges all Member States of ECOWAS to facilitate the accreditation of Ambassadors and other representatives of Mr. Alassane Ouattara to their countries;
Further directs the President of the ECOWAS Commission to intensify contingency plans to meet all eventualities, including the provision of humanitarian corridors and the protection of civilians. Instructs the President of the ECOWAS Commission to take all appropriate measures to strengthen the ECOWAS presence in Côte d'Ivoire to facilitate the discharge of the responsibilities of the Community;
Urges the UN to request the international Community to ensure an enabling environment for the population and the UN Mission to go about their duties without any hindrance, and provide protection and welfare to the refugees and internally displaced persons generated by the crisis;
Finally, invites the African Union Commission to urgently implement the Decisions of the AU Peace and Security Council of 10 March 2011 on Côte d'Ivoire by despatching without delay the High Representative to the country and establishing the joint AU-ECOWAS facilitation team to ensure the immediate transfer of power to Mr. Alassane Ouattara.
The Authority decides to remain seized with the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.
Done at Abuja,
This 24th Day of March 2011
H.E. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan
Chairman For The Authority
http://allafrica.com/stories/201103250751.html

A lot to think about

Stan
03-28-2011, 07:48 AM
The French reaction strikes me as justified but then again I don’t know enough about the laws and customs of war to actually have an informed opinion. But given that in the wake of the retaliation French expats had to be evacuated from the country at government expense and that the French military ended up killing at least twenty people in street riots facilitated by Gbagbo’s thugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congr%C3%A8s_Panafricaine_des_Jeunes_Patriotes) I don’t know that I think they acted correctly. I acknowledge that hindsight is 20/20, but in any case, that’s a taste of what will occur if the French and/or other Europeans decide to strong arm Gbagbo offstage and the reason I feel the international response has been responsible to this point.

Street riots, automatic gunfire, burning tires, raping and pillaging -- Sounds much like my everyday life there :D

Not that M-A needs any defending herein...

Having attended many civil wars and assisted with countless evacuations in the region, I assure you that, whatever we do will be viewed as incorrect and excessive. The Gbagbos and Mobutus of the world will make full use of our actions and especially our inactions. As far as a "taste of what will occur" goes, imagine what an African approach to this problem would entail.

ganulv
03-28-2011, 01:55 PM
The Gbagbos and Mobutus of the world will make full use of our actions and especially our inactions.
Mobutu certainly made use of the CIA action that helped oust Lumumba.


As far as a "taste of what will occur" goes, imagine what an African approach to this problem would entail.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like you are implying that Africans are by nature ignorant and/or barbarous and therefore need the West to save them from themselves. Isn’t that day done?

Stan
03-28-2011, 05:30 PM
No offense intended, Ganulv, but your proxy training resembles what Peace Corps, NGOs, State and AID agencies think and do for their relatively short tours on the Dark Continent. I’m afraid you need a real training session in the jungle (not in the city surrounded by whites and sleeping in a cozy apartment).


Mobutu certainly made use of the CIA action that helped oust Lumumba.

Let’s get out of the 60s and into 2009 and 2010 (although there’s little difference from say 1985 and 1990).

Agency actions may have helped Uncle Mo out, but putting him in power and keeping him there took a whole lot more than some minuscule battle with the Lumumbas and Kabilas then (and now). But this is not the issue. We neglected to tell them that one day they would fall from grace (no more money and no more ammo) and have to hold free elections and stop raping and pillaging. We ignorantly believed that we could actually tell them that, and they would simply step down with no fuss.

Now you are in the Africa I know, and not behind a desk.


I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like you are implying that Africans are by nature ignorant and/or barbarous and therefore need the West to save them from themselves. Isn’t that day done?

I’m not intentionally implying anything and I have a decade in 11 countries to back my Bravo Sierra.

They don’t need the West at all. In fact, if we don’t intervene they will eventually take care of the problems just fine. But, can the West sit it out and watch horrific baby pictures, multiple rapes and assassinations on CCN prior to dinner and live with it? As I have already watched those imagines without the benefit of a filtered lens, I can honestly say we can’t take nor watch what we created, and now can’t stomach the appropriate action necessary to end it.

We are on a very different playing field and there is no place for the weak in any scenario, diplomatic or otherwise.

jmm99
03-28-2011, 05:31 PM
from MAL
My point being that it's not because you are part of the UN that you have to let crazy guys do what ever they want because they appologies. Here in fact the question is political rather than legal as the UN do recognise the right of selfdefense for the blue elmets.

Whether the TdM trooper wears a kepi or blue hat, the TdM trooper has a right of personal self-defense. However, personal self-defense and national self-defense are two different animals

My reason for focusing on the UN resolutions is that the series of them from 2004 on provide a firm basis in I Law for the French to be in CdI and to do what they did.

As to unilateral humanitarian interventions, we enter a gray area in any given case. E.g., our 1983 Operation Urgent Fury, which is better known on Wiki as the "Invasion of Grenada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada)". Some would argue that unilateral humanitarian interventions involving armed force in a denied entry situation are barred by the UN Charter, etc. - obviously the US and France do not totally accept that viewpoint.

The ECOWAS resolution is interesting in its request:


... to strengthen the mandate of the United Nations' Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), enabling the Mission to use all necessary means to protect life and property [JMM comment: similar to Libyan UNSC Res], and to facilitate the immediate transfer of power to Mr. Alassane Ouattara [JMM comment: goes beyond Libyan UNSC Res] ...

Both facets are within the broad legal scope of the UN Charter, Chapter VII - "Peace Enforcement".

I don't know what "targeted sanctions" are intended by ECOWAS with this language:


Also requests the United Nations Security Council to adopt more stringent international targeted sanctions against Mr. Laurent Gbagbo and his associates....

Do they include killling them ?

Colonialement

Mike

Stan
03-28-2011, 05:51 PM
The ECOWAS resolution is interesting in its request:

Both facets are within the broad legal scope of the UN Charter, Chapter VII - "Peace Enforcement".

I don't know what "targeted sanctions" are intended by ECOWAS with this language:

Do they include killling them ?

Colonialement

Mike

Hei Mikko !
Targeted sanctions is an old term invented / recognized by the U.N. which most of us saw as a scape goat in the 90s (when they realized that their sanctions were actually causing more humanitarian problems that ousting the problem child).

We also thought that economic sanctions were tools to exert pressure without recourse to force... We've come a long way :D

Peace Enforcement is however a relatively new term replacing what the USA thought they were doing in Africa in the 90s --- We used to call it disarmament and political reconciliation as if the two had something to do with life in Africa :rolleyes:

Terv, Stan

Stan
03-28-2011, 06:14 PM
Isn’t that day done?

Just for S**ts and Grins I leave you with the following:

1990s

The Special Rapporteur, in accordance with paragraph 16 of resolution 1995/69 of the Commission of Human Rights, must evaluate the extent to which the Government of Zaire has taken its recommendations into account. Sadly, the results are disheartening (http://www.h-net.org/~africa/sources/zairehumrights.html).

117. In essence, there has been no progress on the following points...

The absolute power of the President is still in place; he administers politics; he controls the administration of the regions and the national bank and his deputies are the majority in the HCR-PT; the armed forces, the security services and the police follow his orders, with the result of impunity, contrary to the Sovereign National Conference agreements. A Government plan, which would create a Supreme Council of Defense and would revise the status of these bodies, is waiting for the response of the Armed Forces of Zaire, which on principle will not accept it.

Sounds like every country I have been in ;) How 'bout those African countries you've been in ?

On to 2010 by the folks at Amnesty International (http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/congo-dem-rep-of/page.do?id=1011136)


Despite an international agreement in 2003 to end the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and two further agreements at the beginning of 2008 to end fighting in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces, the DRC remains a combat zone. Millions of Congolese have perished, and over a million more have been displaced. Serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law have been committed in the eastern part of the country by armed groups and the national army.

Since the international war began in 1996, and up to the present, human rights defenders have faced threats, violence and even murder. Few of those responsible have been punished. Impunity reflects both a lack of will and the ineffectiveness of the Congolese military and civilian justice systems.

ganulv
03-28-2011, 07:08 PM
but don’t assume that I understand why training in the jungle would help me understand anything about Côte d'Ivoire, a country with practically no jungle to speak of. Care to elaborate?


No offense intended, Ganulv, but your proxy training resembles what Peace Corps, NGOs, State and AID agencies think and do for their relatively short tours on the Dark Continent.

I have no clue how those guys train, but for what it is worth my on-the-ground contact describes being caught out on the streets of Bouké in the moments after the mutiny began in 2002 as among the most terrifying experiences in her life. Look, I think I made it pretty clear that I am not claiming to be a West Africa expert, but the vast majority of the media coverage and scholarly publications I have been exposed to related to the current situation in Côte d'Ivoire leave me shaking my head because despite the fact that I learned almost all I know about the situation at a remove from it I somehow know things these so-called experts apparently do not.

I didn’t chime in on this thread to get into a pissing contest, I chimed in to share some things that I know and some opinions I have. I welcome and in fact encourage any disagreement you may have with what I have to say. I acknowledge the value of what you have to add and the nature of how you came about it. You’ve spent a career putting out fires. I respect you because putting out fires is something that needs to be done in our world but something which almost no one has the onions to step up and do. What I do not respect is your apparent attitude that since I am not a firefighter I have nothing useful to say about how those fires you have fought in the past got started nor anything useful to say about how to prevent those that you might have to risk your life fighting in the future if they come to pass.


Sounds like every country I have been in How 'bout those African countries you've been in ?

The only African country I have ever been in is Burkina Faso—I was there for five weeks this summer—so what do you think? Just for ####s and giggles I leave you with the following: despite the fact that you have spent years of your life in Africa and I only five weeks of mine there, can you tell me something substantive about the history and society of Burkina Faso that I do not already know?

jmm99
03-28-2011, 07:14 PM
I now know more about Targeted Sanctions (http://www.watsoninstitute.org/project_detail.cfm?id=4) than I probably want to - including Addressing Challenges to Targeted Sanctions (http://www.watsoninstitute.org/pub/2009_10_targeted_sanctions.pdf).

Based on a quick read of the "Addressing Challenges" publication, these "targeted sanctions" end up being a legal quagmire - and a fruitless one at that. Or, am I being too cynical.

Have targeted sanctions worked in a speciifc case or cases ?

Topsi-tervi

Mikko

M-A Lagrange
03-28-2011, 07:36 PM
Hey ganulv,

It's not a pissing contest. You're most welcome. Take it easy:)

What is your question in the end. What should US do? What should Gbagbo do? What should CIA do?

Asking the french to do the job will not work, that's for sure at the momment. But asking ECOWAS to do it will not work neither, just because they do not want to.
They can threat to use force but they will never do it because that means that one day, if they decide to contest election result in their country, their neighbours will use force against them.
So we are stuck in the mud! :wry:

I went to Burkina Faso 15 years ago and the situation was much different than now. US was a no issue (less than 5% of international aid/cooperation). Now the situation has changed.
But what was the interest of US in destabilising France influence in Ivory Coast in the first place? That's my question.

Mike,

I believe that killing a president in function does not enter into ECOWAS equation. Especially if it's a non elected president... :rolleyes::D

carl
03-28-2011, 08:17 PM
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like you are implying that Africans are by nature ignorant and/or barbarous and therefore need the West to save them from themselves. Isn’t that day done?

This just my opinion on the very general subject of how political things get done in most of sub-Saharan Africa. Africans are not any more ignorant or barbarous than any other humans in the world. However, African political culture can be extremely violent and basic. Anybody who gets involved there should do so only if they recognize that in order to actually get things done, they have to be willing to kill people and that willingness has to be credible. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

Stan
03-28-2011, 09:13 PM
but don’t assume that I understand why training in the jungle would help me understand anything about Côte d'Ivoire, a country with practically no jungle to speak of. Care to elaborate?

Sorry, I did say no offense and, it is not a hit on you personally, rather your comments, which are based on proxy training (your words, not mine). Jungle training (the physical environment and not some actual forest or jungle) is a technical term for those that hang at the Embassy as if protected by some force field, all the while reporting on what their local cooks and gardeners tell them. Surprisingly, that info gets passed to DC as if the reporting officer really went out and did some factual research.


I have no clue how those guys train, but for what it is worth my on-the-ground contact describes being caught out on the streets of Bouké in the moments after the mutiny began in 2002 as among the most terrifying experiences in her life. Look, I think I made it pretty clear that I am not claiming to be a West Africa expert, but the vast majority of the media coverage and scholarly publications I have been exposed to related to the current situation in Côte d'Ivoire leave me shaking my head because despite the fact that I learned almost all I know about the situation at a remove from it I somehow know things these so-called experts apparently do not.

I'm more than certain that your better half has seen quite a bit... But I'm not discussing this situation with her. I guess it's easy to watch TV and read publications without ever being there. I doubt it's that easy however to come to some conclusion that will resolve what decades have not. Your comments about the French troops made me wonder what you based your comments on (as if you'd been there, done that).


I didn’t chime in on this thread to get into a pissing contest, I chimed in to share some things that I know and some opinions I have. I welcome and in fact encourage any disagreement you may have with what I have to say. I acknowledge the value of what you have to add and the nature of how you came about it. You’ve spent a career putting out fires. I respect you because putting out fires is something that needs to be done in our world but something which almost no one has the onions to step up and do. What I do not respect is your apparent attitude that since I am not a firefighter I have nothing useful to say about how those fires you have fought in the past got started nor anything useful to say about how to prevent those that you might have to risk your life fighting in the future if they come to pass.

I didn’t say you have nothing useful to contribute, but your comments about the French, in a situation I assume you know little about, got me going in a cynical path. Although I'm frequently accused of solving many Africa-related problems before they fester, I’m no firefighter. My point about the region therefore remains the same – nothing has changed and getting weak over the French troops protecting themselves in a country they have been in since before I was born tells me they know what they are doing.

I welcome your ideas on how to turn off places like the DRC and Ivory Coast so long as you don’t dump a “one liner” about your dissatisfaction on how the troops deal with a local situation while you sit comfortable at home behind the keyboard. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that I’m a smart ass !


The only African country I have ever been in is Burkina Faso—I was there for five weeks this summer—so what do you think? Just for ####s and giggles I leave you with the following: despite the fact that you have spent years of your life in Africa and I only five weeks of mine there, can you tell me something substantive about the history and society of Burkina Faso that I do not already know?

Touché :D
Not much other than several ethnic groups, their own culture, food, famous for something supposedly no one else has, kleptocracy and military dictatorship through the early 90s. I just described half of Africa where there are 400 tribes, and all the trappings and problems. That said you would have been more careful describing a cookie-cutter cure for the Ivory Coast a few posts back. No ?

Regards, Stan

Stan
03-28-2011, 09:30 PM
I now know more about Targeted Sanctions (http://www.watsoninstitute.org/project_detail.cfm?id=4) than I probably want to - including Addressing Challenges to Targeted Sanctions (http://www.watsoninstitute.org/pub/2009_10_targeted_sanctions.pdf).

Based on a quick read of the "Addressing Challenges" publication, these "targeted sanctions" end up being a legal quagmire - and a fruitless one at that. Or, am I being too cynical.

Have targeted sanctions worked in a speciifc case or cases ?

Topsi-tervi

Mikko

Hyvää iltaa,
I think I've worked out the problem :D
There is like a simulation exercise or some kinda of sanction exercise every year. It's like these dudes are either in the UK or Geneva most of the time :eek:

If we could get them farther south to JMA's place, he could whip them into shape, save cash on all that travel and get us some Tomahawks ;)

Terv, Stan

Stan
03-28-2011, 09:32 PM
... in order to actually get things done, they have to be willing to kill people and that willingness has to be credible. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

Carl,
So eloquently said in just one para !
It's like you were there or something :cool:

ganulv
03-28-2011, 10:22 PM
That said you would have been more careful describing a cookie-cutter cure for the Ivory Coast a few posts back. No ?

That’s exactly the opposite of what I am trying to describe. What I am trying to say is that each situation needs to be looked at it in its own historical and social context. There’s no reason to try and argue that even as warfare goes warfare as done in Africa tends to be particularly foul (though not invariably—the Christmas War (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Agacher_Strip_War) being one deviant case) but that doesn’t make the “we need to stop this before it becomes Rwanda” narrative tenable. That notion warps discussion of every tense situation that arises in contemporary Africa. Heck, it even seems to prevent some people from seeing basic facts. One thing I am trying to suggest on this thread is that the this-is-gonna-be-the-next-Rwanda isn’t the best option to predict what might occur in Côte d'Ivoire. The opposing factions can be characterized by ethnic and religious attributes, yes, but don’t 1) the degree of geographic segregation between the groups involved and 2) the fact that the groups involved enjoy the affiliation of military and paramilitary forces of broadly comparable strength make the Ivorian qualitatively different?


I guess it's easy to watch TV and read publications without ever being there. I doubt it's that easy however to come to some conclusion that will resolve what decades have not.


I welcome your ideas on how to turn off places like the DRC and Ivory Coast so long as you don’t dump a “one liner” about your dissatisfaction on how the troops deal with a local situation while you sit comfortable at home behind the keyboard. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that I’m a smart ass !
You can say “no offense” and “I’m a smart ass !” all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re using rhetoric to get away from addressing whether the use of further force is going to do anything but harm in this situation. What I have or have not experienced of this conflict in particular or of war in general has only so much bearing on how well I or anyone else is able to understand this or any other conflict. If it did then every professional soldier would have a clear and nuanced understanding of the political and historical context of the wars they prosecute.

In case it is unclear, “com[ing] to some conclusion that will resolve what decades have not” is exactly what I saying that the decision to use military force (or assassinate Gbagbo, etc.) will amount to. As for the French attacks on the Ivorian military assets, do note that I judged it to be justified (though if you really think it was mostly about self-defense I have ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you). What I called into question is whether it resulted in a strategic gain. As I said, hindsight is 20/20. I suspect that is why you have not and probably will not see a repeat.

jmm99
03-29-2011, 04:00 AM
though nearing the midnight hour.

No, I don't buy the "targeted sanctions" nor JMA's "miracle missiles" (though closer to the latter). My policy comes down to boots on the ground as a surer (not a certain) measure of "success" - "success" being defined by the underlying policy that drives the mission.

All that comes at a cost. In many cases, the fight is not worth the effort. We may differ in opinion on that one.

Regards

Mike

JMA
03-29-2011, 08:08 AM
The US President has said:


Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.

Is that so? So what will be the trigger for action?

He went on to say in respect of Libya:


And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

So what makes the Ivory Coast different?

Dayuhan
03-29-2011, 09:34 AM
He went on to say in respect of Libya.... So what makes the Ivory Coast different?

Realistically and beyond rhetoric, probably not much. Get a coalition together that's willing to put in meaningful (not token) participation, ask for US help, you'd probably get some. Wait for the US to charge out in front and cajole, coerce, and bribe others into joining, you'll wait a long time. Wait for unilateral US action, you'll wait an even longer time.

The world has seen way too much of unilateral US action and nominal coalitions driven purely by US initiative, putting a vaguely international facade on what is essentially an American action. Hasn't worked well for the US and it's generated almost entirely negative perceptions and responses around the world. The current President campaigned on a promise to change that, and appears to be trying to actually fulfill the promise. Shocking, I know, but it happens.

Certainly you can argue that these situations create a global responsibility and that the US has an obligation to support and where needed participate in multilateral actions aimed at meeting that responsibility. I can't see any even vaguely credible argument suggesting that there is a purely American responsibility there, or that the US has any responsibility to act unilaterally.

JMA
03-29-2011, 01:19 PM
Benin Opposition Leader Houngbedji Claims Presidency as Tensions Increase (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/benin-opposition-leader-houngbedji-claims-presidency-as-tensions-increase.html)


Benin’s opposition presidential candidate, Adrien Houngbedji, declared himself winner of the country’s March 13 election, disputing figures that put him in second place and out of contention for a runoff.

Thanks heavens there are no western interests here.

Stan, time to present him with a brand new jewel encrusted iPhone with a built-in GPS just in case something needs to find his exact position later ;)

JMA
03-29-2011, 03:40 PM
Some 30,000 people are trapped in a church compound in Ivory Coast as fighting worsens in the west of the country, a missionary has told the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12890555).

At a time like this it is hard not to question the sincerity of these words of Obama:


And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

... an absolutely hopeless case...

Stan
03-29-2011, 06:00 PM
That’s exactly the opposite of what I am trying to describe. What I am trying to say is that each situation needs to be looked at it in its own historical and social context. There’s no reason to try and argue that even as warfare goes warfare as done in Africa tends to be particularly foul (though not invariably—the Christmas War (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Agacher_Strip_War) being one deviant case) but that doesn’t make the “we need to stop this before it becomes Rwanda” narrative tenable. That notion warps discussion of every tense situation that arises in contemporary Africa. Heck, it even seems to prevent some people from seeing basic facts. One thing I am trying to suggest on this thread is that the this-is-gonna-be-the-next-Rwanda isn’t the best option to predict what might occur in Côte d'Ivoire. The opposing factions can be characterized by ethnic and religious attributes, yes, but don’t 1) the degree of geographic segregation between the groups involved and 2) the fact that the groups involved enjoy the affiliation of military and paramilitary forces of broadly comparable strength make the Ivorian qualitatively different?

Agreed; I think we are all looking at cultural aspects herein while considering a course of action. I personally don’t recall comparing Côte d'Ivoire to Rwanda other than both being in Africa and both suffering from very similar circumstances requiring very similar techniques to resolve the current impasse. In fact, the two countries couldn’t be more different IMO. I don’t see genocide in the immediate future, but I do see a massive refugee crisis and subsequent humanitarian effort in the looms. The other common denominators are no balance of military power among the opposing parties and, little to no control over the current military forces. We are almost witnessing a typical African “payday to payday” social upheaval while we sit back and play the economic sanctions game via the UN.


You can say “no offense” and “I’m a smart ass !” all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re using rhetoric to get away from addressing whether the use of further force is going to do anything but harm in this situation. What I have or have not experienced of this conflict in particular or of war in general has only so much bearing on how well I or anyone else is able to understand this or any other conflict. If it did then every professional soldier would have a clear and nuanced understanding of the political and historical context of the wars they prosecute.

No rhetoric this time around then – The time to fix the Ivory Coast with some dignity and lives saved is long gone and the political situation will carry on for years. One candidate will hopefully die soon while the other lives in relative luxury with 3 squares a day in a hotel suite he could never afford a single night in, and French military protection to boot. Both parties are doing quite well under the circumstances and have no need to depart. However, the population and military are not doing so well. Both are starving, but only one has firearms and a spiteful arrogance that we should be concerned with. Trouble is an air war can no longer cure this situation and similar to the DRC, there is no limit to how many UN troops you can adequately put on the ground and still fail miserably.

A particularly sore subject, which JMA might expand on depending on his current humor level today ! The fact is we do have professional civilians and soldiers with both experience and a clear understanding that would lead to a swift and far less painless outcome. The problem with that scenario is we are hamstrung by PC. Years ago those so-called swift resolutions took place via proxy armies and (ahem) contractors. We stayed out of the lime light and the job got done with less money and no frills. I’m waiting for the day such efforts make it to WikiLeaks. Good thing we didn’t have much of an internet then !


In case it is unclear, “com[ing] to some conclusion that will resolve what decades have not” is exactly what I saying that the decision to use military force (or assassinate Gbagbo, etc.) will amount to. As for the French attacks on the Ivorian military assets, do note that I judged it to be justified (though if you really think it was mostly about self-defense I have ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you). What I called into question is whether it resulted in a strategic gain. As I said, hindsight is 20/20. I suspect that is why you have not and probably will not see a repeat.

What decades have taught most of us is how to deal effectively with Africans and everybody goes home a winner. Assassinating Gbagbo would have solved many issues and fast. Too late, and we don't need another African martyr with his few loyal followers in the jungle waiting for their chance at governance.

My thoughts regarding your Arizona property for sale are…that your comments be based on experience and facts. As you have noted, you have not personally worked in nor witnessed civil war, social and political upheaval, or participated in a UN mission anywhere in the world. The French response was just as much self-defense as it was a measure of deterrent. To think it won’t happen again is wishful thinking and a smiggin naïve. For a soldier, that could be your final lesson.

JMA
03-29-2011, 10:09 PM
A particularly sore subject, which JMA might expand on depending on his current humor level today ! The fact is we do have professional civilians and soldiers with both experience and a clear understanding that would lead to a swift and far less painless outcome. The problem with that scenario is we are hamstrung by PC. Years ago those so-called swift resolutions took place via proxy armies and (ahem) contractors. We stayed out of the lime light and the job got done with less money and no frills. I’m waiting for the day such efforts make it to WikiLeaks. Good thing we didn’t have much of an internet then !
Stan, it all about the inability to act timeously against one individual (and normally a few of his military cronies) with the subsequent cost to millions of people in terms of deaths or as refugees or in terms of general geographic instability spilling over into neighbouring countries. The Brits have just thrown 16 million pounds into the emergency aid (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/28/emergency-aid-ivory-coast-refugees-liberia) pot for the Ivory Coast and there will no doubt be much more to follow from all over. It will become a largely avoidable bottomless pit for aid money and a humanitarian disaster. The financial and human costs are rising as we predicted.

Dayuhan
03-29-2011, 10:59 PM
They don’t need the West at all. In fact, if we don’t intervene they will eventually take care of the problems just fine. But, can the West sit it out and watch horrific baby pictures, multiple rapes and assassinations on CCN prior to dinner and live with it? As I have already watched those imagines without the benefit of a filtered lens, I can honestly say we can’t take nor watch what we created, and now can’t stomach the appropriate action necessary to end it.

Why would we not be able to sit it out and watch? It's what we've done more often than not. We sat and watched 500,000 dead Indonesians and 2 million dead Cambodians. We watched dozens of tinpot dictators in Latin American kill anyone who disagreed with them... and once we stopped meddling, both SE Asia and Latin America slowly pulled themselves together and have made real progress.

We're sitting out and watching Somalia, Zimabwe, and any number of others, we can certainly do the same with the Ivory Coast. If the alternative is unilateral intervention, we will almost certainly sit it out and watch. If you assume that the US has an absolute responsibility to protect everyone, everywhere, all the time, this is indeed quite despicable, but I can't see how any such responsibility can be reasonably said to exist.


No rhetoric this time around then – The time to fix the Ivory Coast with some dignity and lives saved is long gone and the political situation will carry on for years.

It is possibly a wee bit Pavlovian, but whenever I hear talk of "fixing" other countries I get the urge to be far far away. Luckily in this case I already am far far away.


The problem with that scenario is we are hamstrung by PC. Years ago those so-called swift resolutions took place via proxy armies and (ahem) contractors. We stayed out of the lime light and the job got done with less money and no frills.

What jobs did we really get done? Look at those countries we "fixed" with proxies and contractors; what do they look like today? Did anything really get "fixed", or did we just slap a lid on and kick it down the road?

Early intervention and "fixing" problems before they get out of hand seem attractive, and make sense in the context of any given problem. In a wider picture they're not so attractive. Foreign intervention in general and US intervention in particular are typically not perceived as humanitarian - they are seen as neo-colonial power grabs aimed at expanding the influence of the vast pernicious corporate capitalist empire. That perception prevails even when the site of the intervention hasn't got any resource or market that's worth anything: logic is not a factor in this picture. For better or worse, the US government has determined that it needs to reverse the image of the US as ever-eager intervener of first resort, awaiting any opportunity to dive into the affairs of other countries. For better or worse, the current administration has chosen to try to reverse that image by working primarily through multilateral organizations and by treating intervention as a last resort, not a preferred option. Whether any of us agree with that or not is pretty irrelevant, the guy who campaigned on that platform won the election. Nobody should expect early interventions, or unilateral interventions, from the US any time soon, especially where the US has no interests.

I personally have to agree with that policy: I wouldn't call humanitarian intervention a bad thing, but if we treat it or accept it as a purely American responsibility we put ourselves in an impossible position. It's either everybody's responsibility or nobody's responsibility. The world at large has never appointed the US as global policeman and I can't see how it's in our interest to force ourselves into that role.

Stan
03-30-2011, 01:36 PM
We're sitting out and watching Somalia, Zimabwe, and any number of others, we can certainly do the same with the Ivory Coast. If the alternative is unilateral intervention, we will almost certainly sit it out and watch. If you assume that the US has an absolute responsibility to protect everyone, everywhere, all the time, this is indeed quite despicable, but I can't see how any such responsibility can be reasonably said to exist.

I don’t think what we’ve been doing (and still are doing) could be classified as sitting out and watching. If we do call it that, it’s getting pretty expensive (doing nothing in the region). If we call doing nothing in the Ivory Coast since 99 (exerting our political Sierra to save the Ivory Coast from the French), then you’d certainly be correct in your assumptions. Point is, if we jump in head first with our intended good will to hold free and fair elections in a country that has never had those then we should be ready to back our Bravo Sierra. The current administration will not sit and watch, which, I think they should. I’m not advocating US involvement – on the contrary, I am all for leaving it alone and spend our humanitarian money on our own population.


It is possibly a wee bit Pavlovian, but whenever I hear talk of "fixing" other countries I get the urge to be far far away. Luckily in this case I already am far far away.

I know exactly where you’re coming from as I was far too close, way too many times when the USG came in waving our flag for democracy and slapping the dictators around in a foolish attempt to have them step down.


What jobs did we really get done? Look at those countries we "fixed" with proxies and contractors; what do they look like today? Did anything really get "fixed", or did we just slap a lid on and kick it down the road?

We accomplished what the current administration wanted to fix. Now, whether we can call it fixing things is another matter.



Early intervention and "fixing" problems before they get out of hand seem attractive, and make sense in the context of any given problem. In a wider picture they're not so attractive. Foreign intervention in general and US intervention in particular are typically not perceived as humanitarian - they are seen as neo-colonial power grabs aimed at expanding the influence of the vast pernicious corporate capitalist empire.

I think you may have mistaken my intent. I advocate we fix what we f**ked up and do it with a little more style than spouting political Bravo Sierra in a country that we concluded needed help becoming democratic. In Africa one does not sit and watch the pot boil over - cultural awareness = style !


For better or worse, the US government has determined that it needs to reverse the image of the US as ever-eager intervener of first resort, awaiting any opportunity to dive into the affairs of other countries.

I hope that works out to be true because from where I’m sitting the last four years are no improvement.


I personally have to agree with that policy: I wouldn't call humanitarian intervention a bad thing, but if we treat it or accept it as a purely American responsibility we put ourselves in an impossible position. It's either everybody's responsibility or nobody's responsibility. The world at large has never appointed the US as global policeman and I can't see how it's in our interest to force ourselves into that role.

I personally would not call what we did and are purportedly doing to repair our image, as humanitarian anything. The military is not a humanitarian tool in the president’s kit bag. We have beltway bandits and NGOs to do the humanitarian thing. We are not global policeman, but we should be held accountable for our witless political Sierra and be ready to clean up where we blew it.

tequila
03-30-2011, 02:38 PM
Personally I think the international community appears content to sit and watch Ouattara's forces conquer the country, unlike the last time. Whether the northern forces can do so without widespread human rights violations is the question.

M-A Lagrange
03-30-2011, 02:51 PM
Like was saying Staline in 1945 about Berlin: You can't ask a man to walk 5000 km under fire without having some fun on arrival point. :eek:

Never the less, it is Outtara interrest to hold tight his troops on that particular point.

Stan
03-30-2011, 04:33 PM
Never the less, it is Outtara interrest to hold tight his troops on that particular point.

Hey M-A,
Probably not, but I'll bet Gbagbo will take full advantage of the situation to include breaking his cease fire (well, once he returns from yet another funded convention this month :D ). With his Young Patriots now called back into the action, the blue helmets will be really enjoying the fireworks !

M-A Lagrange
03-30-2011, 06:28 PM
Well, I may disagree with you, just because I want to have a clinical view on the situation. And also, it's on the interrest of Europ and US to make sure that Outtara does not give a chance to Gbagbo to actually break the cease fire.

Tell me, is AU the new magic trick that US have found in Africa to withdraw?
I am quite amazed by all the efforts made by the US to pass the baby to that particular association of "malfaiteurs" all over sub saharian Africa.;)

Stan
03-30-2011, 06:44 PM
Well, I may disagree with you, just because I want to have a clinical view on the situation. And also, it's on the interrest of Europ and US to make sure that Outtara does not give a chance to Gbagbo to actually break the cease fire.

It shouldn't be long now, M-A !


Forces loyal to UN-backed President-elect Alassane Ouattara have captured Ivory Coast's capital (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12908004), residents of Yamoussoukro say.


Tell me, is AU the new magic trick that US have found in Africa to withdraw? I am quite amazed by all the efforts made by the US to pass the baby to that particular association of "malfaiteurs" all over sub saharian Africa.;)

Good question. Let's see, we are the only non-African mission at the AU and have over $400 million invested in peace keeping operations, another couple of million "donated" to suport political affairs :eek: and $250K to (ahem) support diplomatic initiatives (that money was a real dumb idea !).

In sum, I'd say we own the AU :cool:

M-A Lagrange
03-30-2011, 07:03 PM
[LIST=1]
Good question. Let's see, we are the only non-African mission at the AU and have over $400 million invested in peace keeping operations, another couple of million "donated" to suport political affairs :eek: and $250K to (ahem) support diplomatic initiatives (that money was a real dumb idea !).

In sum, I'd say we own the AU :cool:

I'm not that sure that owning such a baby monster means having control of it. :rolleyes:

And yes, seems it won't take long now. But if I was Outtara I would go for the big price and heat the cherry on the top of the cake.
If it happens, anyways, that would be a good message for the continent: guys, now time to play fair! If you loose: you loose!

let see what it will bring in DRC. :o

jmm99
03-30-2011, 07:21 PM
the 82 books donated by the US to the AU library (http://www.usau.usmission.gov/books-03/22/11/) this month. The salient question is whether a copy of the Federalist Papers was included. ;)

OK, perhaps of more importance - JMA can tell us (emphasis added):


25 March 2011
President Obama’s Message to Côte d’Ivoire (http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2011/March/20110328122638su0.3792012.html?CP.rss=true)

The eyes of the world are on Cote d’Ivoire. Last year’s election was free and fair and President Alassane Ouattara is the democractically elected leader of the nation. And I commend President Ouattara for offering a peaceful future for all Ivorians — an inclusive government, reunification and reconciliation.

Now Cote d’Ivoire is at a crossroad and two paths lay ahead.

One path is where Laurent Gbagbo and his supporters cling to power, which will only lead to more violence, more innocent civilians being wounded and killed and more diplomatic and economic isolation.

Or Cote d’Ivoire can take another path. Where Gbagbo follows the example of leaders who reject violence and abide by the will of the people.

Where Ivorians reclaim your country and rebuild a vibrant economy that was once the admiration of Africa. And where Cote d’Ivoire is welcomed back into the community of nations.

This is the choice that must be made.

And it’s a choice for all Ivorians.

I want to close by speaking directly to the people of Cote d’Ivoire.

You have a proud past, from gaining your independence to overcoming civil war. Now you have the opportunity to realize your future. You deserve a future of hope, not fear. You deserve leaders like President Ouattara, who can restore your country’s rightful place in the world. You deserve the chance to determine your own destiny.

It’s time for democracy in Cote d’Ivoire. And those who choose that path will have a friend and partner in the United States of America.

Regards

Mike

JMA
03-30-2011, 11:01 PM
Demanding end to violence in Côte d’Ivoire, Security Council imposes targeted sanctions (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37949&Cr=ivoire&Cr1=)


In unanimously adopting resolution 1975, the Council urged Mr. Gbagbo to immediately step aside, repeating the calls made for months following his UN-certified defeat in November’s presidential run-off, which was won by opposition leader Alassane Ouattara.

Importantly Resolution 1975 authorises UN peace-keepers to "to use all necessary means to carry out its mandate to protect civilians under imminent threat of violence."

JMA
03-31-2011, 04:08 AM
[snip]

Are you impying that SA wants to hand over its African Super Power position to Nigeria? Are you sure that's a good idea?

Mandela attempted to provide statesmanship in various situations but was rebuffed by those who wanted the status quo maintained (and he himself was loyal to the end towards his old struggle mates like Libya which did not help either). You will note that the AU is more a club for thieves and murderers than a respected grouping of national leaders.

As Stan has acknowledged the US (along with Britain and France and the Soviets) allowed this toxic and pernicious situation to develop. The advocacy by some that the US should just walk away and let Africa sort it all out itself is beneath contempt. Rather like saying "we enjoyed the sex but are not interested in taking responsibility for the child born therefrom".

I don't know how it works in France but the view of the US foreign policy is that every new administration seems to believe it can just wipe the slate of the past clean and make a fresh start while ignoring all that has gone before.

The Brits are different in that they never had any noble intent in their dealings with Africa other than led by some missionaries they had a rush of blood to the head and went after the slave trade in East and Central Africa. That was short lived though.


MBeki tried and failed but anyone else would have failed. Honesty has nothing to do with that. Gbagbo is the problem: he is the symbol of the african bias of democracy is a colonial stuff not made for Africa. (I just hate that posture from african leaders and military staff)
African people have the right to live with legitimate governments that listen to them. (My personnal cross...:D)

Mbeki is and was hopeless and even more mired in the past than Mandela. He likes to believe there is a role for him as an "elder" statesman in Africa rather like those other two idiots Carter and Clinton see themselves on the world stage.

The younger generation of South Africans (blacks) are not trapped in the past and have less time old style leaders trapped in an outdated and counter productive paradigm.

Read this to get the idea: Wanted: A new foreign policy for South Africa (http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2011-03-11-wanted-a-new-foreign-policy-for-south-africa)




[snip]

Actually easier to say than to do.
In your post, I can read a will of disengagement from SA in the African pb. Is the situation in SADC that bad? Is the Mandela legacy in this organisation that bad?

SADC is a sick joke. The structure has no power and even if it did it does not have the political will. Take the failure to act over Zimbabwe. Need I say more?

Backwards Observer
03-31-2011, 10:24 AM
Living overseas, I've sometimes gotten the impression that there are an increasing number of competing manifestations of the US foreign policy ectoplasm, each more phantasmically rectitudinous than the last.


ABIDJAN, Cote d’Ivoire - I’ve been in Cote d’Voire (Ivory Coast) since New Years Day meeting with government officials and talking to victims of recent election-related violence. I’ve also met the president, lunched with First Lady Simone Ehivet Gbagbo and even attended an exclusive meeting with all seven members of the Constitutional Council.

The conclusion? President Gbagbo won’t step aside because he is the certified winner of the presidential election.

Why Gbagbo Refuses To Go - Gary Lane - CBN 1/4/11 (http://blogs.cbn.com/globallane/archive/2011/01/04/why-gbagbo-refuses-to-go.aspx)

+++


Right wing evangelical Christians have begun a strong lobby to shore up support for defeated Ivorien leader, Laurent Gbagbo. The arrow head of the powerful bigoted and racially veiled push is notable owner of Christian Broadcasting Network, (CBN) Rev. Pat Robertson.
Buoyed by the massive assurances from Robertson and his American allies, said to have been brokered by a prominent “new age” Pentecostal preacher of Ivorien descent, Laurent Gbagbo bluntly refused to step down on Monday at a meeting with four African leaders.
On the same Monday, Rev. Robertson told a shocked 700 Club audience in America that “where is he gonna go?” and submitted that the U.S. government got it wrong in recognizing Gbagbo’s victorious challenger.

American Evangelicals Join Gbagbo To Propagate Falsehood - sharpedgenews.com (Nigeria) - 1/4/11 (http://www.sharpedgenews.com/news/2011/01-04-11/falsehood.shtml)

+++


As the situation in the Ivory Coast rapidly deteriorates, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla. - R) has written to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for new elections in the Ivory Coast, a signal of support for outgoing president Laurent Gbagbo who has refused to step down from office after losing an internationally certified presidential ballot in November.

Why Does James Inhofe Support Ivory Coast's Gbagbo? - FP - 3/30/11 (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/30/senate_republican_backs_ivory_coasts_gbagbo)

+++

Rather than face Lovecraft-style future, it maybe time hock laptop and get year membership at new massage parlor that open up down street. Ching chong, ching chong chong.

tequila
03-31-2011, 12:19 PM
Ivory Coast Army Chief Seeks Refuge - AP (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7499328.html)


JOHANNESBURG — South Africa says the Ivorian army chief of staff has sought refuge at the home of the South African ambassador to the troubled West African country.

A statement issued by the foreign ministry Thursday said Gen. Phillippe Mangou, his wife and five children arrived at the ambassador's home in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Wednesday night.

South Africa says it is consulting with unnamed parties in Ivory Coast, West African regional leaders, the African Union and the U.N. on Mangou's move.

Mangou sought refuge as rebels fighting to install Ivory Coast's democratically elected president began besieging Abidjan after seizing a key seaport and the hometown of the country's entrenched ruler.



Ivory Coast Defaulted Bonds Rally as Rebels Capture Key Port (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/ivory-coast-s-eurobonds-have-best-week-since-issue-as-rebels-capture-port.html)- Bloomberg



Ivory Coast (http://topics.bloomberg.com/ivory-coast/)’s $2.3 billion of defaulted Eurobonds are surging the most since they were sold a year ago as rebel fighters take control of the key cocoa- exporting port of San Pedro (http://topics.bloomberg.com/san-pedro/).

The bonds due in 2032 bonds advanced 4.6 percent to 44.638 cents on the dollar at 9:58 a.m. in London, heading for the biggest weekly advance since last April at 16 percent. The price is the highest since December.

Forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara (http://topics.bloomberg.com/alassane-ouattara/), the internationally recognized winner of disputed presidential elections, seized the second-biggest port in the world’s largest cocoa producer, “without fighting,” Meite Sindou, spokesman for Ouattara’s Prime Minister Guillaume Soro (http://topics.bloomberg.com/guillaume-soro/), said in a phone interview late yesterday. The United Nations (http://topics.bloomberg.com/united-nations/) has imposed sanctions on incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo (http://topics.bloomberg.com/laurent-gbagbo/) and urged him to give up power.

“Gbagbo’s days are numbered and we shall know either way in a few days or weeks once the situation is resolved,” Stuart Culverhouse (http://topics.bloomberg.com/stuart-culverhouse/), the London-based chief economist at Exotix Ltd., said in a phone interview today.

“The speed of the military advance has probably taken a lot of people by surprise over the last few days” and investors will “look favorably” on a government led by Ouattara to make the missed coupon payments ...

ganulv
03-31-2011, 01:22 PM
but I feel comfortable stating that Pat Robertson is a scumbag as an objective fact.


Like was saying Staline in 1945 about Berlin: You can't ask a man to walk 5000 km under fire without having some fun on arrival point.

That’s a fair point, but there are important differences. The fighting the northerners have endured to this point does not begin to approach what the Red Army had been through. Also, this is a war to control one’s own nation rather than to incapacitate someone else’s. Sherman’s March to the Sea might be a better comparison, though not a perfect one.


Whether the northern forces can [conquer the country] without widespread human rights violations is the question.

The northern forces are certainly not saints but a greater potential for HR violations lies with those allied to Gbagbo. Migrant workers (http://www.france24.com/en/20110330-ouattara-loyalists-seize-town-near-ivory-coast-capital-gbagbo-civil-war-un) are at particular risk.


Right wing evangelical Christians have begun a strong lobby to shore up support for defeated Ivorien leader, Laurent Gbagbo. The arrow head of the powerful bigoted and racially veiled push is notable owner of Christian Broadcasting Network, (CBN) Rev. Pat Robertson.

How do you get Pat Robertson to feign interest in the welfare of Catholics (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire)? Oppose them to Muslims (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Islam_in_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire). I am pleased that security contractors have yet to spin this conflict as a front in the WoT. But since the federal government is handing out money I suspect it won’t take long…

tequila
03-31-2011, 02:17 PM
Ivory Coast Battle Nears Decisive Stage (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01ivory.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)- NYTIMES



DAKAR, Senegal — The battle for Ivory Coast (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/ivorycoast/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s presidency neared a conclusive phase on Thursday as opposition forces reached the outskirts of Abidjan, the country’s commercial center, news agencies reported, and the strongman Laurent Gbagbo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/laurent_gbagbo/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s army chief fled his post.

The army chief, Gen. Phillippe Mangou, sought refuge for himself and his immediate family in the home of the South African ambassador in Abidjan on Thursday, the South African Department of International Relations said in a statement.

His flight appeared to deal a potentially decisive blow to forces loyal to Mr. Gbagbo, who have crumbled from east to west in the West African nation. A string of cities, including the strategic cocoa exporting city of San Pedro, have fallen to forces loyal to Mr. Gbagbo’s rival, Alassane Ouattara (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/alassane_d_ouattara/index.html?inline=nyt-per), as they have swooped south towards Abidjan, the crucial stake in what has now become an open war for the presidency of what was once Francophone Africa’s economic leader ...

JMA
03-31-2011, 03:47 PM
Stan, it all about the inability to act timeously against one individual (and normally a few of his military cronies) with the subsequent cost to millions of people in terms of deaths or as refugees or in terms of general geographic instability spilling over into neighbouring countries. The Brits have just thrown 16 million pounds into the emergency aid (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/28/emergency-aid-ivory-coast-refugees-liberia) pot for the Ivory Coast and there will no doubt be much more to follow from all over. It will become a largely avoidable bottomless pit for aid money and a humanitarian disaster. The financial and human costs are rising as we predicted.

Here we go...

Labour urging Ivory Coast aid push as crisis worsens (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12924482)

More aid money needed:


Labour has warned the humanitarian situation in Ivory Coast is becoming "desperate" amid violence sparked by its disputed presidential election.

They have urged ministers to step up international efforts to get aid to the thousands of people displaced and forced to flee to neighbouring Liberia.

... a largely avoidable bottomless pit?

Stan
03-31-2011, 05:13 PM
Here we go...

... a largely avoidable bottomless pit?

I raise you $17 million (http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1572374) from the USA and 25 million (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201103170826dowjonesdjonline000 391&title=eu-aid-commissioner-ivory-coast-on-brink-of-civil-war) euros from Europe (whoever they are these days).

But, this all pales in comparison to Palestine :eek:


In 2001 Saudi Arabia (http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/palestine) made the largest government donor contribution to Palestine/OPT since 1995, at US$654 million


Then this as you so eloquently already pointed out in the Pirate thread :cool:


In War Games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/25/humanitarian-aid-war-linda-polman): ... Polman argues that humanitarianism has become a massive industry that, along with the global media, forms an unholy alliance with warmongers.

JMA
03-31-2011, 05:48 PM
I raise you $17 million (http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1572374) from the USA and 25 million (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201103170826dowjonesdjonline000 391&title=eu-aid-commissioner-ivory-coast-on-brink-of-civil-war) euros from Europe (whoever they are these days).


Remind me if you will, what is the cost of three cruise missiles?

Stan
03-31-2011, 06:01 PM
Remind me if you will, what is the cost of three cruise missiles?

We've had this discussion before... They are friggin expensive :rolleyes:

Just for the heck of it all, the following from Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-29/libya-mission-cost-at-550-million-for-u-s-forces-so-far-1-.html)


Out of the approximately $550 million cost for the first 10 days of the operations -- March 19 through March 28 -- the Pentagon said about $340 million was for munitions, mostly Raytheon Tomahawk missiles, which cost $1.5 million apiece.

The U.S. launched 192 Tomahawks in the first 10 days, for a cost of about $288 million...

JMA
03-31-2011, 06:23 PM
OK, perhaps of more importance - JMA can tell us (emphasis added):

Mike, the wording of Obama's speech gives an indication of the desired end result. To exaggerate those prospects under a new leader is not new neither is the fact that the new leader's task is exponentially made more difficult if there has been any violent conflict leading up to his assuming his position of head of state.

He will need to watch his back all the time as Gbagbo (if he survives) and his tribal supporters will have a score to settle. So watch for northerners taking over the military or becoming the military and the birth of an intelligence organisation to monitor what Gbagbo supporters get up to (and this will very quickly extend to anyone who is a threat - real or fictional - to the new - northerner dominated - regime). Won't take long before its business as usual (Stan could probably put an accurate timeline on it).

Business as usual will be that Ouattara will quickly join the AU club and have the rules of African leadership explained to him. The main idea which is to protect African dictators and non democratic kleptocracies through adopting the manta "African solutions to African problems".

JMA
03-31-2011, 07:50 PM
We've had this discussion before... They are friggin expensive :rolleyes:

Just for the heck of it all, the following from Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-29/libya-mission-cost-at-550-million-for-u-s-forces-so-far-1-.html)

OK 3 @ $1.5million each. So lets keep the figure of $4.5million in mind while we see the mounting costs of the humanitarian operation and that without even factoring in the human cost in terms of lives and displacement etc.

jmm99
03-31-2011, 08:44 PM
the US should go into the missile frigate rental business - in partnership with another "entity" that could put the boots on the ground needed to develop the real time intelligence to place those three or more missiles precisely on target.

What would an operation like that look like ? Seriously.

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
03-31-2011, 11:21 PM
Looks like Gbagbo might go down without any outside intervention needed. Good outcome... if it happens, of course. The place will be a mess and will be on the dole for a long time after, but that would have been the case in any event.

Only thing worse than an African solution to an African problem is an American, European, or Chinese solution to an African problem.

M-A Lagrange
04-01-2011, 04:40 AM
Only thing worse than an African solution to an African problem is an American, European, or Chinese solution to an African problem.

This would be true is Africa was a country or at least an homogeneous place. But that's not the case.
Ivory Coast is not Central Africa to back up Stan. And it's not Southern Africa. This is a continent where coexist and cohabit places as South Sudan: a country that is implosing before being born; Somalia: should I explain; Rwanda and Uganda: 2 military dictatoriship disguised in democracies; DRC: the most corrupted place on the continent; South Africa and Ivory Coast: economically wealth countries with a fairly educated population; Egypt; Moroco; Algeria...

The way some of them solve issues are: genocide or ethnic cleasing (Rwanda, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Uganda...); civil war (South Sudan, Ivory Coast...); complete chaos (DRC); madness (South Sudan, Somalia...); Election (Botswana, South Africa...)

People of Ivory Coast are luky, they have a great leader in Ouattara who waited until the last moment to use force with a disciplened army. That is something to be noted rather than saying anything else than us is a good solution.
Thinking as Africa as one entity is a mistake done so easily by continent sized countries as the US.

But yes you are right: the issue will be solved soon. With a deployment of ONUCI troops and French troop in Abidjan to "securise" the civilian population (it's happening now).

M-A Lagrange
04-01-2011, 06:06 AM
This morning Outtara troops were attacking his residence and have taken the national TV. (See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12929625 and note the reported collapse of Gbagbo's troops).

As Patrick Achi said: Gbagbo has gone no where, he still believe gods will come to rescue him... :eek:

Finaly good news in sub saharian Africa :D

Backwards Observer
04-01-2011, 08:06 AM
Only thing worse than an African solution to an African problem is an American, European, or Chinese solution to an African problem.

Unfortunately it seemed like Mr. Gbagbo was going for the worst of both worlds.

+++


Simone Gbagbo is an evangelical Christian and references to God fill her colourful speeches. Saturday’s address was no exception.
“God is leading our fight,” “God has already given us victory,” and “God is with the people, God chose Gbagbo” were just a few of the remarks heard at the rally in Abidjan.

'God has given us victory', Gbagbo's wife tells rally - africanewscircle(france24article) - 1/16/11 (http://africanewscircle.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=212:god-has-given-us-victory-gbagbos-wife-tells-rally&catid=44:africa&Itemid=84)

+++


The threat West African women present to the powerful was on vivid display in Ivory Coast on International Women’s Day. The nation’s military opened fire on a peaceful demonstration that included women dressed in white T-shirts. At least one woman died and three men were killed. These shootings come one week after the military killed seven women who were also part of a protest for peace.

Ivory Coast massacre mars International Women's Day - trustlaw - 3/14/11 (http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/blogs/the-word-on-women/ivory-coast-massacre-mars-international-womens-day)

Dayuhan
04-01-2011, 08:13 AM
This would be true is Africa was a country or at least an homogeneous place. But that's not the case.

Yes, I know that... was just bouncing back this little bit from JMA:


The main idea which is to protect African dictators and non democratic kleptocracies through adopting the manta "African solutions to African problems"


People of Ivory Coast are luky, they have a great leader in Ouattara who waited until the last moment to use force with a disciplened army. That is something to be noted rather than saying anything else than us is a good solution.

We don't always have a solution, and if a local solution is available it's generally going to be better than an externally imposed one. Much better for Ouattara, in this case, to be the President whose own followers fought to put him where he belongs than to be the President who was put in the chair by intervening foreigners.

Not saying foreign intervention is never called for, but in the long run it's best, IMO, to treat it as a last resort rather than a default first choice. Nobody ever learned to solve problems by having someone else come in with a solution at the first sign of trouble.

M-A Lagrange
04-01-2011, 08:40 AM
Yes, I know that... was just bouncing back this little bit from JMA:

[QUOTE]The main idea which is to protect African dictators and non democratic kleptocracies through adopting the manta "African solutions to African problems"

Well, I still agree nd support JMA statement. But that's because I'm cynical.



We don't always have a solution, and if a local solution is available it's generally going to be better than an externally imposed one. Much better for Ouattara, in this case, to be the President whose own followers fought to put him where he belongs than to be the President who was put in the chair by intervening foreigners.
Not saying foreign intervention is never called for, but in the long run it's best, IMO, to treat it as a last resort rather than a default first choice. Nobody ever learned to solve problems by having someone else come in with a solution at the first sign of trouble.

200% agree with you.

Bob's World
04-01-2011, 09:34 AM
When the legitimacy of government falls into question it makes any country ripe for unrest. Even in the US where we have tremendous (though I fear declining) popular faith in the system, it has been challenges of legitimacy that have created the greatest public uproar; first with the "Hanging Chads" in the Bush-Gore election, and then currently with questions over President Obama's birth certificate.

As countries becomes less stable and more troubled in general, such concerns are amplified.

I don't know much about the facts of the situation in general in the Ivory Coast, or of the recent events in particular, but I would look for indicators for public perceptions of the following factors in making my assessment:

1. Populace perceptions of their liberty (as measured based upon their historic, cultural expectations).
2. Populace perceptions of the legitimacy of their government. (recognition of its right to government them. what foreign bodies think is moot)
3.. Perceptions of justice. (how they feel about the application of the rule of law)
4. Perceptions of respect and equity (do any significant groups feel they are treated unfairly as a matter of some status)
5. And lastly I'd look at their perceptions of their ability to legally effect changes in the system.

We need to learn to look beyond our own perceptions of the situation or of the leaders on either side of the equation that emerge. It is too easy to let biases distract from clear eyed assessments of the critical drivers behind such movements.

Sometimes such things are "just" a play for power or wealth, and are not supported by a broad popular base of concern. Or, as often, the popular base of concern exists, but the small group playing for power or wealth are merely leveraging that for their own selfish gains.

My suspicion is that this is just one more chapter in what is going to be a long book of chaotic revolutions and evolutions of governance to emerge for the disruptive influences of western colonialism. I don't believe there are any shortcuts or quick fixes so long as the current borders and concepts of each being a sovereign state as defined by some European colonial body persist. Interventions may mitigate violence, but they typically ignore the core drivers of such conflicts and instability.

M-A Lagrange
04-01-2011, 02:09 PM
I do not want to play the cassandra but according to some IC specialist the Outtara forces offensive has been planed by US and/or French military with logistical support from Nigeria and Burkina Faso.

Sure visible boots on the ground are not a solution.

Stan
04-01-2011, 03:28 PM
I do not want to play the cassandra but according to some IC specialist the Outtara forces offensive has been planed by US and/or French military with logistical support from Nigeria and Burkina Faso.


M-A,
We both said that would be happening and that once again means, we the West, have another puppet for say the next 10 years or so :rolleyes:

African solutions with Western initiatives and money (to African problems) :wry:

JMA
04-01-2011, 04:30 PM
It shouldn't be long now, M-A !

Right again Stan... well done. How come the "smart guys" never saw it coming?

JMA
04-01-2011, 05:15 PM
[QUOTE]

Well, I still agree and support JMA statement. But that's because I'm cynical.

So we agree, but lets make sure we agree for the same reasons.

Can someone provide an example of where a totally African solution to an African problem has worked where its aim was governed by democratic and human rights concerns?

This is why I suggest that the actions in support of these so-called African solutions have had no altruistic motivation whatsoever.

Through neglect we now see an African solution taking place in the Ivory Coast (with the puppet strings being pulled by a few western powers). Note that the loss of life and the destruction of lives and livelihoods will be played down and how Africans solving their own problems will be hyped up. Hundreds of dead and a million displaced (and thats only the beginning) is in the eyes of some a small price to play to allow a problem to be solved the African way (through raping, looting and pillaging).


200% agree with you.

You really think the legacy after effects of a president being put into power (even if he is the rightful president) by a brutal, barbaric, often machete wielding ragtag army will be better than if the UN or France of even the US did so?

Journalist Monica Mark reporting out of Abidjan (http://www.iwradio.co.uk/newscentre/world/ivory-coast-leaders-palace-under-attack-15963990) seems to have grasped the fundamental truth of the matter:


"Although Mr Ouattara has tried to distance himself from insurgents they have contributed with his rise to power and he has to grapple with those factions who want a slice of the pie for helping bringing him into power," Miss Mark said.

...and depending how much fighting is needed to dislodge Gbagbo they will demand a big slice of the pie. Long after the UN peacekeepers and/or the French/British/US troops are gone these thugs (because that's all they most often are) will be still around and flexing their muscles and keeping their machetes sharp.

These "problems" are best sorted out by short, sharp and extremely violent actions carried out before the various factions begin to recruit and arm their respective thug militias.

Stan
04-01-2011, 10:16 PM
Can someone provide an example of where a totally African solution to an African problem has worked where its aim was governed by democratic and human rights concerns?

This is why I suggest that the actions in support of these so-called African solutions have had no altruistic motivation whatsoever.

Nope, but what I can do is swap Gbagbo for say Mobutu and some dates leaving the remainder of this report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12929625) intact and you would in fact have the same CNN report from 65, 90, 95, 2003, 2006, etc., etc. :rolleyes:




Mr Ouattara was internationally recognised as president last year

"I can still hear heavy gunfire and loud thud of mortar fire,"

President Gbagbo has not fled the country. He is on Ivory Coast territory, in a safe place from where he is organising and leading the resistance."

French forces say they have taken about 500 foreigners, including 150 French nationals, to a military camp after they were threatened by looters in Abidjan.

"There is a security vacuum and that has opened the way for looters to roam the streets,"

A Swedish woman working for the UN in Abidjan was killed by gunfire

news agency on Friday reported French officials as saying a teacher of French nationality had been shot dead

However, he retains the support of the Republican Guard

JMA
04-02-2011, 10:02 AM
the US should go into the missile frigate rental business - in partnership with another "entity" that could put the boots on the ground needed to develop the real time intelligence to place those three or more missiles precisely on target.

What would an operation like that look like ? Seriously.

Regards

Mike

The operational implementation of this preemptive peacekeeping is the easy part.

The difficult part is the political will and the legal aspects (which has become the greatest excuse for inaction these days).

Such a strike needs to be carried out before the mass graves start filling up and because of that which politicians and which countries will have the balls to make the early call to take the bad-guy out? And even if some did how would one get consent from the UNSC for example or from the US Congress?

M-A Lagrange
04-02-2011, 10:26 AM
JMA:

like others here, I've seen the result of african solution to african problems (Liberia and DRC to be precise). I think that african solutions are not good yet because of the leaders who sit around the table to discuss that solution, not because of Africa.
As I am also an hopless optimistic, I believe that the coming generation on the continent is less ready to leave crazy guy as Amin Dada take power.
Now the problem is to deal with all the people in western and asian capitals who believe that enlighted dictatorship with military control over economy is the key to stable Africa.

On the other hand, when I see the AU saying they will evaluate progress made by the government on Human Rights in DRC: I wonder if I should laught or cry.

Taking simply the kimberley process: with DRC as president, Zimbabwe diamond have been clean diamonds approved. Sure they are not coming from slave mines in Zim, they are blood diamonds from DRC and Angola...

And that's why Ivory Coast is important, despite the 800 civilians being assassinated by Outtara forces (a much lower nb than if Gbagbo had won the war). Ivory Coast is a turning point in Western Africa: now when a president is elected and recognised by the international community powers (That's the limit and grey area) then even african leaders have to back him up. Unlike in the past where it was dirty colonialism. It's a step in the right direction for the African people.
It's an imperative to support the fall of" Africa is different and cannot afford democracy mantrat".

Bob's World
04-02-2011, 10:40 AM
And that's why Ivory Coast is important, despite the 800 civilians being assassinated by Outtara forces (a much lower nb than if Gbagbo had won the war). Ivory Coast is a turning point in Western Africa: now when a president is elected and recognized by the international community powers (That's the limit and grey area) then even african leaders have to back him up. Unlike in the past where it was dirty colonialism. It's a step in the right direction for the African people.
It's an imperative to support the fall of" Africa is different and cannot afford democracy mantrat".

External recognition is important for external considerations, but has little bearing on internal considerations. I guess my question would be, election aside, does the populace perceive that the election captured their will and do they recognize this leader as well?

Too often as the outsiders we help establish an election, it takes place, a victor emerges, is duly recognized by those external parties, and we all congratulate ourselves on bringing democracy to some dark corner of the planet. What is your assessment of how the populace feels about this? Are the rebels sore losers in an accepted process, or are they representatives of some significant segment of the populace who felt excluded from full and fair participation in the legal process?

M-A Lagrange
04-02-2011, 02:48 PM
External recognition is important for external considerations, but has little bearing on internal considerations. I guess my question would be, election aside, does the populace perceive that the election captured their will and do they recognize this leader as well?

Too often as the outsiders we help establish an election, it takes place, a victor emerges, is duly recognized by those external parties, and we all congratulate ourselves on bringing democracy to some dark corner of the planet. What is your assessment of how the populace feels about this? Are the rebels sore losers in an accepted process, or are they representatives of some significant segment of the populace who felt excluded from full and fair participation in the legal process?

I'll be cynical but also I believe objective (the line is somehow difficult to draw in the red soil of Africa): does it really matter?
I the case of Ivory Coast, you have a group of rebels who are backing a president elected with more than 50% in a system that was designed to ensure 90% to the president!
So yes, thet do represent a fairly large portion of the population. And Yes their participation is not free from charges.

In comparaison, you have countries as Uganda with a facade pluri parti system and a president elected with 83% of the vote on 1st round. Well, in a country where if you wanna be a legal political party you have to be a non dissident branch of the presidential party... Does he really represent any body part from is tribe and few economic actors? I let you judge.

What is important is the fact that African Leades cannot hide behind the excuse of we are different now!
African people are human being living on Earth and as such they have the same right than others to cast a vote after a peaceful political campaign and their choice, what ever the arguments given, ethnical strings or what else, to be respected (both sides winners and loosers living in peace). And if not then there is first a ban by other african leaders then a military operation, supported by african leaders, to bring the process back in tracks.
And that does count!

I have seen too many governments and local illetrate leaders saying that in Africa what was important was the homogeneity of the community, that democracy brings divisions in the villages...
Well, I'm not an ethnograph or an anthropologist but I can tell you with 200% insurance that African village unity is a lie, just like african protocommunism. Just like everywhere else, in a village you have a community of people with various personnal objectives who do oppose on many things. Did that end up in wars? All the time? NO!
Let's face it: you are from US, Thailand, Australia, Ivory Coast, Zambia, Colombia... What counts it's your level of education to fully understand the process. The rest is just silly talk designed to preserve interrests.

And by the way, be carefull with legality. With good lawyers I can get you elected president dictator for life of what ever African poor subsaharian country. That will not mean that you, Bob, you will be legitimate. But it would be legal (and fair if they work well). :D

carl
04-02-2011, 05:16 PM
Well, I'm not an ethnograph or an anthropologist but I can tell you with 200% insurance that African village unity is a lie, just like african protocommunism. Just like everywhere else, in a village you have a community of people with various personnal objectives who do oppose on many things.

I used to picture villages in the DRC as bucolic places of pastoral bliss until a passenger spent the length of an hour and a half flight telling me about village jealousies, plots, deceptions and how they would further these with plant products from the forest. Witch doctors are fine practical botanists. They specialize in untraceable poisons. It was scary.

ganulv
04-02-2011, 08:37 PM
And that's why Ivory Coast is important, despite the 800 civilians being assassinated by Outtara forces (a much lower nb than if Gbagbo had won the war).
As with so many other things lately, the PRC scooped the West on this one (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/30/c_13805510.htm). There were antecedents to the Duékoué killings (2005 (http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/AFR31/007/2005/fr/05ff84cf-d4df-11dd-8a23-d58a49c0d652/afr310072005en.html), 2011 (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d2ff88f8.html)).


Well, I'm not an ethnograph or an anthropologist but I can tell you with 200% insurance that African village unity is a lie, just like african protocommunism. Just like everywhere else, in a village you have a community of people with various personnal objectives who do oppose on many things. Did that end up in wars? All the time? NO!
Small communities most everywhere are rife with tensions. Knowing everyone you see on an everyday basis isn’t all good (nor all bad, of course). In the Ivorian conflict there is additionally identity politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivoirity) related to political enfranchisement. The roots of the Ivorian conflict lie in the way that Houphouët-Boigny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9lix_Houphou%C3%ABt-Boigny) allowed the circular migration pattern in operation under the French colonial authorities to continue and the way that his successors used migrants as the goat when Houphouët-Boigny left them holding the bag (in the form of an economic downturn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivorian_Civil_War#Context_of_the_conflict)).

M-A Lagrange
04-03-2011, 09:00 AM
Small communities most everywhere are rife with tensions. Knowing everyone you see on an everyday basis isn’t all good (nor all bad, of course). In the Ivorian conflict there is additionally identity politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivoirity) related to political enfranchisement.
The roots of the Ivorian conflict lie in the way that Houphouët-Boigny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9lix_Houphou%C3%ABt-Boigny) allowed the circular migration pattern in operation under the French colonial authorities to continue and the way that his successors used migrants as the goat when Houphouët-Boigny left them holding the bag (in the form of an economic downturn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivorian_Civil_War#Context_of_the_conflict)).

Gav,

Be carefull also to not fall in the other side pitt. Houphoet did not start his controversial concept of ivoirite under the french colonisation!
The french colonisation stopped in 1960 with a LAW at the french National Assembly drafted by Houphoet. (Who was a french deputy at that time with others like Sangor).

The ivoirite has been built by Houphoet as a copy cat of the nationalist politic concept on imigration in France in the 80 (Front National and the arabs). This was an idea which turned bad in both countries and worst in Ivory Coast. Talking of Outtara; Gbagbo used that concept to spoil him from running the elections as he questioned his nationality (Outtara used to be prime minister and ambassador anyways...).
You have the same in the US with conservative wings questioning Obama origines... :o

The problematic of rich countries with poorer neighbours is not a specific out come of colonisation. See the US and Mexico.
The instrumentalisation of it to play dirty politic neither. :(:eek:

French have a lot to do with Ivory Cost history but also give back to ceasar what belongs to ceasar. In 50 years, Ivorians have been able to develop their hown political concepts (which are sometime close to ours the westerners) but blaming the past is always an easy skeep goat.

JMA
04-03-2011, 10:00 AM
JMA:

like others here, I've seen the result of african solution to african problems (Liberia and DRC to be precise). I think that african solutions are not good yet because of the leaders who sit around the table to discuss that solution, not because of Africa.

Yes I agree and I have referred to the AU as being a club for thieves and murderers who wish to perpetuate their "ownership" of their perspective countries rather than advance the well being of their peoples.


As I am also an hopless optimistic, I believe that the coming generation on the continent is less ready to leave crazy guy as Amin Dada take power.

OK that's fine, but leave the dreams to the next generation of Africans and let us deal with the current reality on the ground shall we?


Now the problem is to deal with all the people in western and asian capitals who believe that enlighted dictatorship with military control over economy is the key to stable Africa.

Well certainly China does not give a damn about human rights and like the colonial powers before will tend to go for stability in the supply of raw materials over democracy and freedom of the people in the various African countries. But before we lay the problem totally at the door of the "the people in western and asian capitals" we need to remember that the recent examples of military supported exploitation of DRC resources comes from Uganda and Zimbabwe.


On the other hand, when I see the AU saying they will evaluate progress made by the government on Human Rights in DRC: I wonder if I should laught or cry.

Yes I know the feeling well. But the really sad part about that is the western academics who nod their heads in agreement and suggest western governments should fund the whole exercise. These useful idiots sitting in universities all over the world have as much blood on their hands (indirectly) as the thugs who do the actual killing given the opportunity to do so through the insanely stupid foreign policies these so-called academics influence.


Taking simply the kimberley process: with DRC as president, Zimbabwe diamond have been clean diamonds approved. Sure they are not coming from slave mines in Zim, they are blood diamonds from DRC and Angola...

Well it is all a bit like Libya being on the UN Human Rights Commission. But the joke is on the West. You probably know how much the leaders of these Mickey Mouse countries laugh at the stupidity of the US and the West in these situations.


And that's why Ivory Coast is important, despite the 800 civilians being assassinated by Outtara forces (a much lower nb than if Gbagbo had won the war). Ivory Coast is a turning point in Western Africa: now when a president is elected and recognised by the international community powers (That's the limit and grey area) then even african leaders have to back him up. Unlike in the past where it was dirty colonialism. It's a step in the right direction for the African people.
It's an imperative to support the fall of" Africa is different and cannot afford democracy mantrat".

OK, this my view.

Ivory Coast is important for the precedent it sets in terms of elections. The plus is that the AU has accepted the result of the UN supervised elections and called on Gbagbo to stand down. So far so good. But thereafter unable to influence anything. Failed attempts at mediation and a hollow threat of military action. So the positive for Africa is that the AU stood firm in supporting the election result with the negative that they (collectively) failed to show any ability to deal with the impasse. It needs to be accepted that at this point in time the AU is unable to organise a party in a brewery. Good only (like the Arab League in the Libyan situation) for the odd resolution and beyond that absolutely nothing else.

The inability of the AU to support the election result with force if necessary and that together with little real effort through the UN who already had a peacekeeping force in place. So Ivory Coast was left to stew in its own juices until Quattara could wait no longer (or his forces were ready) and full blown hostilities broke out again.

So what is the message to the Likes of Kibaki in Kenya and Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Don't allow the UN to supervise the election because if it does not go your way the UN and possibly the AU will recognise the result. But somehow if it all goes pear-shaped nobody will have the interest or balls to raise a finger so they sort out the problem with their loyal forces. (African body counts don't worry anyone)

This cycle needs to be broken.

But who to "fix" the problem? Firstly, as discussed earlier, its all a bit too late in the day to do any more that force a ceasefire. The UN forces should be urgently increased to this end. Let the French lead the exercise.

Because the situation has been allowed to descend into violent civil war again and the reports of massacres on the ground it is clear that both Gagbo and Quattara must be prosecuted for war crimes. Violence must not be allowed to win.

So with both Gagbo and Quattara out of the picture standing trial in the Hague what will be the next step in the political process in the Ivory Coast?

ganulv
04-03-2011, 11:55 AM
but those things involving opinion as well as the hypothetical future are of course less sure.


Houphoet did not start his controversial concept of ivoirite under the french colonisation!
I think actually that the whole concept was not Houphouët-Boigny’s but rather Bédié’s.


French have a lot to do with Ivory Cost history but also give back to ceasar what belongs to ceasar. In 50 years, Ivorians have been able to develop their hown political concepts (which are sometime close to ours the westerners) but blaming the past is always an easy skeep goat.
It’s not my intent to blame this situation wholly on the past—Côte d'Ivoire is very much its own place. Indeed, the French spoken in Abidjan is thought of by linguists as its own distinct variety, not a poor knock-off of a European language. But the situation would not take the shape it does today without previous events. To say that


[t]he problematic of rich countries with poorer neighbours is not a specific out come of colonisation. See the US and Mexico.
misses some particularities. Mexico has a long history of providing a source of labor to the United States but it has just as long a history of building its own foreign policy and industrial and agricultural base. The fact is that under the French Haute Volta and Mali provided the laborers and the wealth was created in Côte d'Ivoire. The population of what are now separate nations were part of a whole system—Haute Volta as an organizational institution did not even exist from 1932 to 1947, for example. Under Houphouët-Boigny this system did not cease to exist despite the new international borders. The UEMOA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_Economic_and_Monetary_Union#West_Afri can_Economic_and_Monetary_Union) is one reflection of this. It was only after HB’s death that some Ivorian politicians began to forward the idea of much firmer borders and inclusion based upon a newly circumscribed citizenship.


So with both Gagbo and Quattara out of the picture standing trial in the Hague what will be the next step in the political process in the Ivory Coast?
The guy who ends up on the loosing side might (if he lives to see the end of the conflict). But I don’t know of an analogous case where the leaders of both sides of a conflict are brought to trial for HR abuses. And I don’t know if bringing even one of them to the Hague would be good for the future of Côte d'Ivoire. To paraphrase Mahmood Mamdani (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/anthropology/fac-bios/mamdani/faculty.html), some advocate for victors’ justice when survivors’ justice is more workable and humane. To insist upon prosecution when it is unclear as to whether it would not just contribute to continued instability seems decidedly unjust to the survivors of a conflict. Each situation is its own, however, and time will of course tell how such things play out in the Ivorian situation.

M-A Lagrange
04-03-2011, 03:01 PM
I think actually that the whole concept was not Houphouët-Boigny’s but rather Bédié’s.
Unfortunately, I think I can say without mistaking too much that t was introduce by Houphouet with the advice of Francois Mitterant. The idea was to undermine the right wing by empowering the extrem right. A stupid idea that's blowing up in the face of the 2 countries. Hopefully not in the same manner.


It’s not my intent to blame this situation wholly on the past—Côte d'Ivoire is very much its own place. Indeed, the French spoken in Abidjan is thought of by linguists as its own distinct variety, not a poor knock-off of a European language. But the situation would not take the shape it does today without previous events. To say that
Agreed


misses some particularities. Mexico has a long history of providing a source of labor to the United States but it has just as long a history of building its own foreign policy and industrial and agricultural base. The fact is that under the French Haute Volta and Mali provided the laborers and the wealth was created in Côte d'Ivoire. The population of what are now separate nations were part of a whole system—Haute Volta as an organizational institution did not even exist from 1932 to 1947, for example. Under Houphouët-Boigny this system did not cease to exist despite the new international borders. The UEMOA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_Economic_and_Monetary_Union#West_Afri can_Economic_and_Monetary_Union) is one reflection of this. It was only after HB’s death that some Ivorian politicians began to forward the idea of much firmer borders and inclusion based upon a newly circumscribed citizenship.

The same as for US and Mexico. They were first welcome:je suis planteur, could say a lot of Ivorian who were employing them in the 80 and early 90. Then came divers economical crisis and domesticpolitical crisis which lead to the split of relations between Burkina Faso (Haute Volta is a little too colonial and not enugh communist revolutionary for me) and Ivory Coast. Remember that Blaise Compaore was first of all a good friend of Houphouet and Mitterant (he killed his camarade Thomas Sankara for them).


The guy who ends up on the loosing side might (if he lives to see the end of the conflict). But I don’t know of an analogous case where the leaders of both sides of a conflict are brought to trial for HR abuses. And I don’t know if bringing even one of them to the Hague would be good for the future of Côte d'Ivoire. To paraphrase Mahmood Mamdani (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/anthropology/fac-bios/mamdani/faculty.html), some advocate for victors’ justice when survivors’ justice is more workable and humane. To insist upon prosecution when it is unclear as to whether it would not just contribute to continued instability seems decidedly unjust to the survivors of a conflict. Each situation is its own, however, and time will of course tell how such things play out in the Ivorian situation.
There is only justice of the mightiest: that's the root principle of monopoly of violence by the state and then rule of law. It is acceptable because the mightiest has legitimacy of popular support as it is the state and it garanties you rights against the acceptance of a punishment for those who do not observe the law.
After... then join JMM and me in the vine degustation club that we have to form to discuss science fictional justice and legal implementation of the concept of Just. :D

jmm99
04-03-2011, 07:33 PM
from MAL
There is only justice of the mightiest: that's the root principle of monopoly of violence by the state and then rule of law. It is acceptable because the mightiest has legitimacy of popular support as it is the state and it garanties you rights against the acceptance of a punishment for those who do not observe the law.

Formation of a "vine degustation club" is a no brainer.

Cheers

Mike

M-A Lagrange
04-03-2011, 08:24 PM
OK, I was a little upset.
I'm actually working on the problematic of justice in an another african country and getting up set by the over focalisation of US on effect of no justice and support to the victimes.
Knowing perfectly that it's the concept of compensation of victims coming from the roman law that is the base of modern international humanitarian law drafted by grotius.
Sometimes, you just realise that the execution of the law by the state is bound to the will and capacity of the state. And that a justice dedicated and driven only by victims rights is just not applicable and even the worst legal solution.

jmm99
04-04-2011, 12:12 AM
Your analysis seems to follow Weber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber) + Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault) concepts of the state - as interpreted, of course, by Legrange. :D

Foucault BTW wasn't a bad prophet - writing about the 1979 Iranian Revolution, but looking at militant Islam in general:


As an Islamic movement, it can set the entire region afire, overturn the most unstable regimes, and disturb the most solid. Islam which is not simply a religion, but an entire way of life, an adherence to a history and a civilization, has a good chance to become a gigantic powder keg, at the level of hundreds of millions of men. . . Indeed, it is also important to recognize that the demand for the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people” hardly stirred the Arab peoples. What it be if this cause encompassed the dynamism of an Islamic movement, something much stronger than those with a Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist character? (“A Powder Keg Called Islam”)

Of course, gigantic powder kegs sometimes take a long time to blow - 1848 Europe blew some ca. 1918 and more ca. 1938-1948.

Moving to your justice of the mightiest, that is a logical extrapolation of Weber's "State" having the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence".

For example, taking the UN, the Big Five (US, UK, France, Russia, China) have a huge amount of potential power as the permanent UNSC members - if they ever decided to work together. Even if we are spared that example of giantism, any one or more of them can impose its own "justice" on the lesser species - so long as one of the others does not block the actors (e.g., USSR was absent when Korea was voted; and, of course, the Russian and Chinese abstentions currently).

Admittedly, Grotius and Roman Law are a big deal in the historical development of I Law - as well as in the national systems of Code Law. But, would you want to time travel back and live under Pax Romanum, whether Western, Eastern or Unified ? I'd rather the Barbarians and their relative insecurity (which to me ='d more freedom and adaptability).

Regards

Mike

PS: For the last year or so, my wife has had a love affair with the Merlots and Cabernet Sauvignons of Double Dog Dare Cellars (Ripon CA). Not a bad red table wine. I think she's more in love with the name and the dogs:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/2334852108_0fc6a4a7c8_z.jpg

Just to dispel any thoughts that the "vine degustation club" will not include Barbarian products.

Backwards Observer
04-04-2011, 08:05 AM
Outrage over Ivory Coast killings.


At least 1,000 Christians were slaughtered this week in at the Salesian Saint Teresa of the Child Jesus mission in Duekou, Ivory Coast by Muslim troops loyal to Alassane Ouattara. The state-run media has been slow to report the facts.

Muslim troops slaughter 1000 Christians in Ivory Coast - gatewaypundit - 4/3/11 (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/muslim-troops-slaughter-1000-civilians-in-ivory-coast-massacre/)

+++


“It is now clear, based on U.N. reports coming from Cote d’Ivoire, that mass killings have occurred at the hands of Alassane Ouattara,” Inhofe said. “This calls into question his legitimacy to lead that country. Ouattara is on a rampage, killing innocent civilians, and he must be stopped before this becomes another Rawanda.
“The United States must call for an immediate ceasefire to prevent Ouattara and his rebel army from committing a mass slaughter of the Ivorians, especially the many youth with sticks and baseball bats, who are protecting Gbagbo at the presidential palace.

Senator Inhofe calls for Cote d'Ivoire Hearings after mass slaughter - favstocks.com - 4/3/11 (http://www.favstocks.com/senator-inhofe-calls-for-cote-d’ivoire-hearings-after-mass-slaughter/0341036/)

+++


“I am probably the most knowledgeable person about Africa in the U.S. Senate,” Inhofe wrote to Clinton.
Inhofe sometimes has framed his interest in Africa in religious terms, once calling it “a Jesus thing,” and he told The Oklahoman two years ago that he first went to the continent at the urging of Doug Coe, the longtime organizer of the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
Gbagbo and his wife are evangelical Christians. Ouattara is Muslim.


Inhofe won't step in on dispute - newsok.com - 4/4/11 (http://newsok.com/inhofe-wont-step-in-on-dispute/article/3555230)

+++

In previous Ivory Coast killings news.


Bloody Thursday

What was supposed to be a peaceful march ended up as a bloodbath on Thursday March 3, 2011. During an all female protest organised in Abobo, a pro-Ouattara district of economic capital Abidjan, seven women were shot dead, apparently by Gbagbo's national Defense and Security Forces.

Cote d'Ivoire: Who Killed the Seven Women Protesters? - videos - globalvoicesonline.org - 3/4/11 (http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/03/04/cote-divoire-who-killed-the-seven-women-protestors-videos/)

Here's a question: is that a couple bursts of 14.5mm fired from the BTR-80(?) into the unarmed women in the first video? Sounds heavy caliber.


“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Matthew 25:31-46 - biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV)

What a f***ing mess.

Backwards Observer
04-04-2011, 09:22 AM
If I recall correctly, Council Member William F. Owen has elsewhere stated that a close reading of The Prussian reveals that morality is whatever furthers your policy. The brutal and 'beam-challenged' reality of this is becoming plain to see. See you in the hot place, Seamus.

M-A Lagrange
04-05-2011, 04:33 AM
Gbagbo residence has been taken by Outtara troops.
The UN opened fire with attarck helicopters on the Gbagbo troops camp in Abidjan.
Ban KinMoon sent a letter asking the French president to help the UN by destroying Gbagbo heavy artillery as Gbagbo is using it to bombard civilian population.

Let's face it: It's over! Outtara has won, the right has won and it's not the speaches of lost US politicians who have no clue on what is going on in Ivory Coast that will change what ever.

JMA
04-05-2011, 07:04 AM
Let's face it: It's over! Outtara has won, the right has won and it's not the speaches of lost US politicians who have no clue on what is going on in Ivory Coast that will change what ever.

What's over?

Quattara won in November but now through the actions of his forces (certainly with his knowledge - as that is the way "wars" are fought in Africa) he has now become yet another thug "war crimes" perpetrator soon to be masquerading as a head of state. He will be welcomed in the AU club as one of their own.

No, the US can't pick up the blame for this one. There has been a UN peacekeeping force on the ground since the civil war and that was the in place mechanism to use to sort the problem out. It was only last week that in UNSC 1975 (?) they were given the authority to use whatever means necessary to protect civilians. Did they ask for more troops to protect the civilian population? No. What the French did was send more troops and take over the airport as a means to protect European civilians (EU) and possibly by request the Lebanese but not a care about the Ivorian civilians.

Now we see the UN firing on the Gbagbo forces after the Northern forces had crossed the buffer zone and the body count of forces and civilian men women and children started to rise on both sides.

The UN has failed to secure the buffer zone and thereby protect Ivorian civilians. The French must share some responsibility for this.

My position on how to deal with Gbagbo and the military units who support him has been clear from the beginning so I have no problem with the UN or the French or anyone firing on Gbagbo's palace or the military bases... but by doing so after allowing the Northern forces to cross the buffer zone first gives the impression that their actions are in support of the assault from the North. I therefore state that both the UN and the French are complicit in any war crimes committed by the northern forces after their unopposed crossing of the buffer zone.

As per African war fighting tradition it is after one of the armed factions runs away that the really bad stuff happens in terms of crimes against civilians who are of the wrong tribe or religion or dared to support the loser. Lets see how the UN and the French handle this side of the conflict.

M-A Lagrange
04-05-2011, 01:51 PM
Gbagbo is negociating his evacuation according to reuters: it's over... It was over in November but it took a military action to have it concretised...

The Russian are calling for an emergency Security Council to question the action of ONUCI which used force against Gbagbo. This was certainly done with the agreement of 3 of the UNSC. Apparently Russia might be affraid to have lost its influence over African affairs... Let's wait and see.

JMA: please do not try to blame the west all the time over war crimes. It's not the French troops who did that.

ganulv
04-05-2011, 04:10 PM
My position on how to deal with Gbagbo and the military units who support him has been clear from the beginning so I have no problem with the UN or the French or anyone firing on Gbagbo's palace or the military bases... but by doing so after allowing the Northern forces to cross the buffer zone first gives the impression that their actions are in support of the assault from the North. I therefore state that both the UN and the French are complicit in any war crimes committed by the northern forces after their unopposed crossing of the buffer zone.
I read their actions as simple pragmatism. Opposing the northern forces would have been a finger in the dyke; firing on the positions of the soon to be defeated side who were needlessly prolonging the fighting seems to be both a humanitarian move and a smart one in this context. How often do you see all those things go hand-in-hand?

ganulv
04-06-2011, 04:17 PM
The AP photo below shows two members of the northern forces wearing what appear to be hunters’ shirts (https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/3289) as they enter Abidjan. Hunters’ associations (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bassett/shared/Bassett%20pubs/Africa_Today.pdf) have played an important role throughout the Ivorian conflict.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/04/06/ivorycoast2_wide.jpg?t=1302100289&s=4

Stan
04-06-2011, 08:59 PM
– a checkpoint with half-dressed looking buzzards with FNs.

Similar to most African countries, the stats from the early 90s reflect some grandiose change that only later escalates in spite of all these so-called security measures and newly-formed extensions of the government.

There’s nothing mystical about an armed shakedown in the dark and most of the folks that were purportedly turned over to authorities were hardly thieves – rather political opposition that would be later “detained” under (fill in reason here).

Cheers for the insightful PM ;)

ganulv
04-07-2011, 04:20 AM
– a checkpoint with half-dressed looking buzzards with FNs.
Wow. That’s just… My grandfather who thinks the Voting Rights Act was a step in the wrong direction doesn’t say things like that. Are you so easily provoked that you make yourself look like a refugee from a Kipling novel just to get in a dig at me?

Hunters are by definition anti-social, dangerous, and skilled in the performance of violence (like, you know, soldiers can sometimes be) but I know people who credit them with their lives because of the protection they provided in the initial days of the Ivorian civil war. Calling two men you have never met buzzards leads me to believe you are an ignorant bigot.

Stan
04-07-2011, 05:18 AM
Are you so easily provoked that you make yourself look like a refugee from a Kipling novel just to get in a dig at me? Or are you just an unobservant dimwit?

No dig on you, rather the poorly translated article from Jeune Afrique and the bogus stats from the early 90s. As far as these so-called hunters and their garb goes, the picture is typical of Africa and gave me a good chuckle :D


Hunters are by definition anti-social, dangerous, and skilled in the performance of violence (like, you know, soldiers can sometimes be) but I know people who credit them with their lives because of the protection they provided in the initial days of the Ivorian civil war.

All the hunters and soldiers I know are anti-government and generally very social. Perhaps you mean the African hunters ? I'm sure their physical and armed presence affected crime rates and I'm also very well aware of what they did and probably still do, especially during a civil war when one can always blame the act on the opposing military. I was personally saved by a Zairian buzzard but it wasn't his intent to do so and he wanted some sort of compensation to boot.


Calling two men you have never met buzzards leads me to believe you are an ignorant bigot. Or possibly just an ass of a human. Maybe both.

This is where I feel your lack of time in these places leads you to believe your reading of the events is dead on correct.

Not really a bigot, but have been accused of being an ass by my last three Xs :cool:

Ken White
04-07-2011, 05:19 AM
I edited your post to remove the unnecessary verbiage, ganulv. You're new so this is a warning with no points assessed but the basic rule is attack the message and not the messenger. You're entitled to your opinion and you can certainly vent it to your monitor but try to avoid putting it in through the keyboard if it entails anything approaching name calling.

Ho, who knew Stan was awake... :D

So the beat cop can now go back to sleep. You guys be cool -- and my exes weren't nice enough to cal me an ass, there were other anatomical pats involved as I recall...

That would be parts. Can't spell right when asleep... :D

M-A Lagrange
04-07-2011, 06:50 AM
Ok, let's have some anthropology to light our thoughts here.
Hunters in West Africa are a separate social class which most of the time is not really accepted in the villages. Just like the hunters in Canada during the 19th century.

They are skilled with violence: well their job is to hunt wild animals. They use generaly long barrel home made riffles and are therefore quite skilled. (Try to shoot with their guns without get a broken arm and hit the target;) Not really the same as with a modern semi automatic riffle).

In many wars like Liberia or Sierra Leone, they played an important role as village protectors and scouts. This due to their knowledge of the surrounding environment and to their ethnic group identity.

Finally, saying they are not sociable is an oriented comments as they are excluded from many communities as they are supposed to have magic skills and practice witchcraft.

And finally, i'm not that surprised, just as Stan, to see such troops on both sides. In Europ we had hunters regiments and if you take stricto sensus the mountain infantry, chasseur alpin, their name means hunters from the mountain top.

What we can be glad of is that there's no crazy Taylors boys or But Naked like troops on Ouattara side. Meeting a crazy rasta guy with a marriage dress because he is "dress to kill" (litteraly): that, it's f*&^*$g scary. :eek:

JMA
04-07-2011, 08:35 AM
Gbagbo is negociating his evacuation according to reuters: it's over... It was over in November but it took a military action to have it concretised...

That they (the northern forces) can't get this guy out of a bunker tells you what?


The Russian are calling for an emergency Security Council to question the action of ONUCI which used force against Gbagbo. This was certainly done with the agreement of 3 of the UNSC. Apparently Russia might be affraid to have lost its influence over African affairs... Let's wait and see.

The Russians (correctly) sense US (political) weakness and want to step in and take advantage of this current situation. Understandable. Made and idiot of themselves by claiming civilian causalities a few weeks ago, but they will learn as they go along.


JMA: please do not try to blame the west all the time over war crimes. It's not the French troops who did that.

All the time?

OK, lets start here. What was the aim of the buffer zone across the country? What were the duties and the responsibilities on the UN peacekeepers in that regard? Was the crossing of the buffer zone by an armed force from the North a breach of the ceasefire or what? ... we can go on.

The post election situation in Ivory Coast has been hopelessly incompetently handled. Another in a long line of case studies in how to (at great UN expense over a number of years) contribute rather to heightened internal tensions and violence through incompetence than to contribute to longer term stability in the country and by implication the region.

Dayuhan
04-07-2011, 09:55 AM
The Russians (correctly) sense US (political) weakness and want to step in and take advantage of this current situation.

How does staying out of a situation that is clearly none of our business and not even peripherally related to our interests constitute "weakness"?

Stan
04-07-2011, 02:13 PM
How does staying out of a situation that is clearly none of our business and not even peripherally related to our interests constitute "weakness"?

I think JMA meant what the Russian's view as "implied weakness" via our inaction. Not that their current knee-jerking reactions are anything to write home about :D

Stan
04-07-2011, 02:17 PM
OK, lets start here. What was the aim of the buffer zone across the country? What were the duties and the responsibilities on the UN peacekeepers in that regard? Was the crossing of the buffer zone by an armed force from the North a breach of the ceasefire or what? ... we can go on.

Hmmm, is that why we call it a demilitarized zone :D:D:D

Stan
04-07-2011, 05:46 PM
There’s nothing mystical about an armed shakedown in the dark and most of the folks that were purportedly turned over to authorities were hardly thieves – rather political opposition that would be later “detained” under (fill in reason here).


The United Nations mission in Ivory Coast (ONUCI) said on Saturday that traditional hunters known as Dozos fought alongside Ouattara's forces and took part in killing 330 people in the western town of Duekoue.

Then of course diplomatic regret and denial :rolleyes:


"The government (Ouattara's) notes with regret that the allegations of the deputy chief of ONUCI human rights division are not supported by any evidence after its preliminary investigation," Ouattara's government said in a statement.

It also denied that Dozos were part of its forces.

M-A Lagrange
04-07-2011, 06:35 PM
JMA:
I hate to say it and to admit it but Buffer zone, as humanitarian corridors in Yugoslavia are killing fields. Especially under UN protection.
UN troops are not commited and willing to do anything, they are too politicised to actually just do their job.

In a previous article, someone suggested that private contractors could do the work. Unfortunately I had to respond it would not be possible because of national pride and soverainty.
And that's the problem. When you ask a chiwawa to do a bulldog job: you end up with a bloody mess.

jmm99
04-07-2011, 08:03 PM
now we are moving into comparative anthropology of present-day West African hunters with 19th century Canadian hunters ....


from MAL
Ok, let's have some anthropology to light our thoughts here.
Hunters in West Africa are a separate social class which most of the time is not really accepted in the villages. Just like the hunters in Canada during the 19th century.

The 19th century (and earlier 18th and 17th century) Canadian hunters - whether Indian, French or Métis - were very much accepted in their villages. And, for good reason, because the basic hunters were the primary means of the villagers' survival, and the voyageurs of the fur trade provided whatever equity the villagers possessed.

To the extent that French Canada had separate social classes in the villages, the "hunters" were likely to play leadership roles; and to be as involved in trade and commerce, even though usually being capable in close encounters with man and beast - e.g., this 19th century "hunter", François-Xavier Aubry (http://www.histoirequebec.qc.ca/publicat/vol7num1/v7n1_16f.htm), my great-grandfather's 2nd cousin:


Héros de la guerre de Sécession, le général Williams Sherman, chef des armées de l’Union (nord) qui a connu Aubry au Missouri et en Californie déclare: «Aubry était le meilleur exemple de cette belle race d’hommes courageux et audacieux qui ont grandi dans les plaines». Bergeron, René, F.X. Aubry, 1824-1854, p. 197.

So, hail the beaver "hunter":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Leroyal22regiment.jpg

Bonne chance & Regards (from me and my Canadian canoe paddling ancestors and relatives)

:):):)

Mike

Dayuhan
04-07-2011, 10:31 PM
I think JMA meant what the Russian's view as "implied weakness" via our inaction. Not that their current knee-jerking reactions are anything to write home about :D

Knee-jerking is an old Russian tradition, and I don't think anyone's terribly worried about it.

They might of course see our reluctance to get involved as "implied sanity"... a very peripheral implication to be sure, given events elsewhere, but a step in the right direction. I'm sure they'd love to see us buried in as many quagmires as possible, draining blood and treasure with no gain to ourselves, but I see no special reason to indulge them.

tequila
04-07-2011, 11:47 PM
Who's response for the Duekoue killings (http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=92372)? - IRIN


... According to reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other aid agencies at least 800 people were killed in the Duékoué fighting. While details are sketchy, most victims appear to have been from the local Guéré community, traditionally Gbagbo supporters.

Some Duékoué residents contacted by IRIN blamed the killings on farmers living in encampments outside Duékoué - on land they have worked for decades - whom the Guéré have sought to oust since Gbagbo’s arrival in power.

Gbagbo sought to annul land leases to Burkinabé, Baoulé and other groups working the coffee and cocoa plantations, in favour of previous Guéré owners and their descendants. “These killings were a settling of scores,” one Guéré man said. “People came and killed the [mainly Wobé and Guéré] landowners.” Residents said people came to the town after the FRCI, armed primarily with hunting rifles and machetes ...

Most of the killings reportedly were in the Carréfour neighbourhood - known as a base for pro-Gbagbo militia. Residents said the militia had fled and innocent civilians were left behind. “[Groups who work the land] are taking advantage of the presence of the FRCI to eliminate as many [locals] as possible in order to control the land,” said one of the thousands of residents who have sought refuge at the Catholic mission in Duékoué.

Residents said all homes in Carréfour were burned and homes in other neighbourhoods pillaged.

Residents of Duékoué said two days after the killings the new FRCI authorities sent a griot - a traditional West African poet, musician and storyteller - through the town calling for calm, urging people to return to their normal activities and stressing the town was now secure. But the griot also passed on strong warnings: “Anyone found armed but not belonging to the FRCI will be disarmed. Anyone caught stealing will be killed, without exception.”

...

In June 2005 dozens of mainly Guéré villagers were attacked in night raids on two nearby villages, Petit Duékoué and Guitrozon. Houses were set ablaze and men, women and children hacked to death. Some accused the Dozo, traditional hunter warriors attached to the Malinké community and seen by many as proxy soldiers for the rebels - accusations that have resurfaced after the recent killings ...

M-A Lagrange
04-08-2011, 05:28 AM
Mike,

I hope I did not offense you. My comparaison is strictly limited to the fact that they represent a separate social group. Nothing mor, canadian hunters from the 19th and actual west african hunters have nothing else in common.

Tequila:

If you want to find why people fight for in Africa, just look at who owns the land. It's always the roots of the conflict.

JMA
04-08-2011, 06:37 AM
In Ivory Coast, Democrat to Dictator (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08konan.html)

The above article written by an Ivorian gives an insightful summary of an aspect of the country's history.

The question, however, needs to be asked as to whether Gbagbo was ever a real democrat and also whether Ouattara is or will be any better.

JMA
04-08-2011, 06:55 AM
JMA:
I hate to say it and to admit it but Buffer zone, as humanitarian corridors in Yugoslavia are killing fields. Especially under UN protection.
UN troops are not commited and willing to do anything, they are too politicised to actually just do their job.

Yes indeed M-A and herein lies the problem. This inability to keep the peace in situations when the peace (or ceasefire) is really threatened makes such a UN interventions laughable.

For this and other reasons it is why I advocate as early and violent an intervention as possible once the culprit and his key supporters are identified beyond doubt to ensure they are "neutralised" swiftly and effectively.


In a previous article, someone suggested that private contractors could do the work. Unfortunately I had to respond it would not be possible because of national pride and soverainty.
And that's the problem. When you ask a chiwawa to do a bulldog job: you end up with a bloody mess.

There is certainly potential for the use of private contractors but I would suggest that this type of intervention should be limited to short duration exercises as such organisations would have serious problems maintaining discipline, among what would primarily be mercenaries, in the medium term.

JMA
04-08-2011, 07:05 AM
Then of course diplomatic regret and denial :rolleyes:

I often ask myself which idiots believe these statements of denial? Gbagbo says this, Ouattara says that and even the stuff coming out of Gaddafi's Tripoli. Its all garbage. But there are those in every situation who just suck this stuff up...

Backwards Observer
04-08-2011, 07:27 AM
Another take on the Ivory Coast situation:


As Cote d'Ivoire's bloody leadership contest draws to a close and the surrender of Laurent Gbagbo, the incumbent president, seems imminent, a long list of atrocities and electoral irregularities mark the records of both him and his opponent, Alassane Ouattara.

But with 1,500 people reported dead and more than 200,000 displaced, can one stubborn man be held solely responsible for the human cost of this four-month long dispute?

Ethan Zuckerman, the founder and editor of Global Voices, believes the situation is more complex than a one-man blame game.

"The challenge with the situation in Ivory Coast is that neither side has clean hands. Forces working for both have committed atrocities and, unfortunately, it's very hard to see how any resolution to the conflict will avoid further bloodshed, as both sides seek to settle scores."

Manufacturing Cote d'Ivoire's 'good guy' - Tendai Marima - AlJazeera - 7/4/11 (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201147101815313980.html)

***


Global Voices [Ethan Zuckerman Bio]
Rebecca MacKinnon and I founded Global Voices in 2005 when we were both fellows at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Initially, we'd planned to build an aggregator of blogs from around the developing world, based on my interest in Africa and her focus on China.

ethanzuckerman.com (http://ethanzuckerman.com/)


Ethan Zuckerman is a senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. His research focuses on the distribution of attention in mainstream and new media, the use of technology for international development, and the use of new media technologies by activists. He and his team recently launched Media Cloud, an open-source platform for studying online media that enables quantitative analysis of media attention.

Ethan Zuckerman Profile - TED.com (http://www.ted.com/speakers/ethan_zuckerman.html)

Dayuhan
04-08-2011, 12:10 PM
For this and other reasons it is why I advocate as early and violent an intervention as possible

By who?


There is certainly potential for the use of private contractors

Who hires them, and who pays them??

JMA
04-08-2011, 12:42 PM
Another take on the Ivory Coast situation:

Manufacturing Cote d'Ivoire's 'good guy' - Tendai Marima - AlJazeera - 7/4/11 (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201147101815313980.html)

It is certainly worth quoting the last two paragraphs of Marima's article.


In Ouattara's final transition from his luxury suite at the Hotel du Golf to the presidential palace, it is sincerely hoped that he can unite the country and restore peace. However, hard questions will need to be asked of him by seekers of truth and justice.

Despite the efforts by the media and international community to produce a clear-cut good guy, bad guy narrative for easy mass consumption, countless disturbing images and stories of violence perpetrated by rebel and patriot forces, show there are no clear lines distinguishing the righteous from the heathens. In war, all are sinners, even the guys with major international support.

The seekers of truth and justice will lose out in the end because almost nobody cares and most just want this problem to go away (which it won't). Ouattara could have come to power with some credibility if he had not had to resort to violence due dithering and hopeless incompetence by ECOWAS, the AU, the UN and the world community in general. Because of the fighting it will be largely back to square one. Another hopeless, basket case country. To think that this last bit could have been avoided. Pretty sad really.

Stan
04-08-2011, 03:05 PM
Who's response for the Duekoue killings (http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=92372)? - IRIN

Not buying it for a second these days…Seems we are at an impasse with he said she said. Having watched it first hand, there's sufficient reason to believe both were involved and the press will just make a mockery of the event.


As more details emerge (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201147101815313980.html) about the massacres in Duékoué and elsewhere, about the atrocities committed in the struggle for Cote d'Ivoire, the international community finds itself in a difficult position. As Salon asked of US Republican Senator James Inhofe's "backing [of] a brutal despot," it must be asked: Will the international community, led by the UN and France, continue to support a man implicated in such gross violations?

Backwards Observer
04-08-2011, 04:42 PM
As Salon asked of US Republican Senator James Inhofe's "backing [of] a brutal despot," it must be asked: Will the international community, led by the UN and France, continue to support a man implicated in such gross violations?

This is gonna sound hopelessly naive and possibly even chauvinistic, but for prominent US Christians to unblinkingly support an ostensibly Christian government that shoots unarmed women and appears to dismiss the incident as 'a blunder', really seems to diminish the whole Jesus thing. Is the New Testament important enough to be taken seriously, uh, especially by Christians; or am I the only clod who hasn't clued in that the whole converting the world business is in truth, "just business"?

Backwards Observer
04-08-2011, 06:44 PM
or am I the only clod who hasn't clued in

Dumb question, huh? I'm off to read Erasmus...

Dayuhan
04-09-2011, 01:25 AM
Ouattara could have come to power with some credibility if he had not had to resort to violence due dithering and hopeless incompetence by ECOWAS, the AU, the UN and the world community in general.

Can't see how being placed in power by intervening foreigners could possibly help any government's credibility or legitimacy. Democracy, or any kind of political progress, is not handed over on a plate, or installed, by a foreign deus ex machina. People have to win it by themselves, or it doesn't mean much. Sometimes that means fighting for it, and when that happens there will be some ugly stuff happening. That's the nature of political change. It never came easy or pretty or nice in the West, why should it be different anywhere else?

If you start with the assumption that intervention is a fundamentally desirable thing and the sensible default reaction to any internal instability anywhere, it looks like "dithering and hopeless incompetence". Can't see why anyone would start with that assumption, but there's no accounting for tastes, or opinions.

JMA
04-09-2011, 08:26 AM
Can't see how being placed in power by intervening foreigners could possibly help any government's credibility or legitimacy. Democracy, or any kind of political progress, is not handed over on a plate, or installed, by a foreign deus ex machina. People have to win it by themselves, or it doesn't mean much. Sometimes that means fighting for it, and when that happens there will be some ugly stuff happening. That's the nature of political change. It never came easy or pretty or nice in the West, why should it be different anywhere else?

If you start with the assumption that intervention is a fundamentally desirable thing and the sensible default reaction to any internal instability anywhere, it looks like "dithering and hopeless incompetence". Can't see why anyone would start with that assumption, but there's no accounting for tastes, or opinions.

You would have realised that I generally ignore your responses to my posts. This mainly because we appear to be so diametrically opposed in terms of position on most of the issues that a ### for tat posting sequence will just lead to intervention from a trigger happy moderator.

Firstly Ouattara was placed in power through the democratically expressed wishes of the voters of Ivory Coast.

As I have stated before IMHO it is far more preferable for the UN or even the old colonial power France to ensure the wishes of the people of the Ivory Coast are carried out than for the country once again descend into a state of civil war (as it has now).

OK, so the initial point of departure that Quattara will be installed in power by intervening foreigners is simply not correct so by implication all that followed thereafter can be discarded. More like Ivorian democracy would have been saved through by intervening foreigners if civil war had been averted.

As to your opinion in the second paragraph (which incidently I don't see as a personal attack or significantly provocative) is not supported by the facts on the ground. What you term as the sensible default reaction which I term dithering and hopeless incompetence has led to the descent into civil war. Nothing vaguely sensible about not foreseeing this possibility or allowing it to happen.

In November 2010 with the elections finally taking place there was hope for the Ivory Coast. Dithering, incompetence and hollow words and threats have allowed the situation to descend into civil war once again with 1m people displaced and a known 1,500 killed/murdered/butchered and the clock is still ticking. Do you really present this outcome as the result of the sensible default reaction?

But I do agree that the US should stay out of African affairs including Libya as apart from Stan there is no other American who has posted here on any related topic that indicates even the most fundamental grasp of the issues. The continued comment just confirms this.

Dayuhan
04-09-2011, 10:07 PM
You would have realized that I generally ignore your responses to my posts. This mainly because we appear to be so diametrically opposed in terms of position on most of the issues that a ### for tat posting sequence will just lead to intervention from a trigger happy moderator.

I've been diametrically opposed to, for example, Bob's World for a long enough time, with numerous teats and tats, and no moderator has yet been involved. It just needs keeping the teats slightly concealed, or you get the ### stuff. This place wouldn't be very interesting without differences of opinion; just requires a bit of civility.


Firstly Ouattara was placed in power through the democratically expressed wishes of the voters of Ivory Coast.

Winning an election and being placed in power are two different things. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.


As I have stated before IMHO it is far more preferable for the UN or even the old colonial power France to ensure the wishes of the people of the Ivory Coast are carried out than for the country once again descend into a state of civil war (as it has now).

Sometimes people have to fight to get where they want to go. Always been that way.

I think what you miss on the point of "understanding the issues" is that understanding intervention or the lack thereof is not just about "understanding the issues" in the countries where intervention is proposed. You also have to understand the issues in the countries that have to do the intervening, and I don't think you're looking at that side at all. There aren't many countries that have the capacity to intervene. All of them have economic problems and are accountable to populaces who aren't very interested in messing in other people's fights. All of them have found that past interventions have not generally advanced their interests and have often proven contrary to their interests.

For several decades now I've been dishing out advice to Westerners who come to Asia looking to save the place. It goes like this:

When you see people doing things that make no sense to you, don't assume that they are stupid, insane, or incompetent. Assume that there's something in the picture that you don't see

It works just as well in the opposite direction:

If you look at other countries and consistently see behaviour that seems ridiculous to you, don't assume that they are incompetent ditherers. Assume that there are other factors in their picture that you aren't aware of.

People who don't do what you think they should do aren't necessarily incompetent. They're just balancing your agenda with a lot of other agendas and priorities, many of which are a lot more important to them.

It would be wonderful in "the global community" or "the UN", or anybody other than the US could somehow escort Africa (or a dozen or so countries within Africa, before M-A comes and reminds me that they're all different) from point C to point G without passing through points D, E, and F along the way, but realistically it's not going to happen. Even if everyone on SWJ agreed that it should, it still wouldn't. Early intervention in particular is not going to happen: there's no multilateral decision-making process to support it and a general consensus has emerged that intervention should be a last resort, not a default reaction.

Like it or not, there is no global cop. Nobody wants the job or can afford the job, and taking that job isn't in anyone's interest.

M-A Lagrange
04-09-2011, 11:10 PM
There has been no military interventions led by the UN since Corean war and Shabba war in DRC. That means since the 60.
We can look at desert storm as a UN military intervention carried out by a coalition of powers with UN mandat. But what is different from the 2 previous engagement is that no one did it under the UN flag. (Debatable, I know)

What Ivory Coast is demonstrating is that there is a need now to come back to military intervention under UN flag. We cannot just let democratic process being droped down in Africa just because there are too many local interrest and not enough international interrests (or too much for some countries as France in that particular case).

I would really support JMA point on the fact that Outtara, even if he did cheat, just as Gbagbo, has won the elections!
We need a commitement from UNSC to act! Chinese did it in Lybia by buying the rebels oil. There is a need to increase political pressure at UNSC on the 5 guys who decide and nuke Gbagbo forces once for all. UN have the control of air (even without the french)! This should be possible to take down Gbagbo heavy artillery, mortars and armored vehicules.
Once it's done for good, Outtara troops can clean up the place with air support and strike straignt to Gbagbo HQ.

Keeping this wait and see posture is want makes short wars turn to infinite bloody civil wars.
Saying we will hold every criminal accountable is nice but if you do not have the power to impose the very first step of Right, then it's yelling in the desert.

Dayuhan
04-10-2011, 12:25 AM
What Ivory Coast is demonstrating is that there is a need now to come back to military intervention under UN flag. We cannot just let democratic process being droped down in Africa just because there are too many local interrest and not enough international interrests (or too much for some countries as France in that particular case).

I can agree with that, but there are still two major problems there.

First, the UN has no capacity to act on its own, and ends up depending on the same small list of powers that are capable of intervention outside UN auspices. If the US, Britain, or France intervenes on behalf of the UN, it's still perceived as intervention by those powers. For the UN to be able to act it has to be able to act without depending on those powers to provide the muscle.

Second, the UN has problems making decisions. It's made up of individual countries that act according to their perceived interests, which means that if most countries don't see any advantage in intervention, the UN will have a hard time generating support for intervention. Even if countries vote in favor, they may not be willing to provide resources if they don't see intervention as consistent with their interests.

I don't follow the UN that closely; the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty appalling. Has it ever been established that the UN has a blanket authority or responsibility to enforce election results?

jmm99
04-10-2011, 02:05 AM
International organization practice has been to cite the need for regional peace and security when deciding to intervene; and to cite respect for state sovereignty and non-interference with internal affairs when deciding not to intervene.

IMO: the test is Orwellian - All pigs are equal; but some pigs are more equal than others.

Regards

Mike

JMA
04-10-2011, 08:12 AM
I've been diametrically opposed to, for example, Bob's World for a long enough time, with numerous teats and tats, and no moderator has yet been involved. It just needs keeping the teats slightly concealed, or you get the ### stuff. This place wouldn't be very interesting without differences of opinion; just requires a bit of civility.

Winning an election and being placed in power are two different things. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.

Sometimes people have to fight to get where they want to go. Always been that way.

I think what you miss on the point of "understanding the issues" is that understanding intervention or the lack thereof is not just about "understanding the issues" in the countries where intervention is proposed. You also have to understand the issues in the countries that have to do the intervening, and I don't think you're looking at that side at all. There aren't many countries that have the capacity to intervene. All of them have economic problems and are accountable to populaces who aren't very interested in messing in other people's fights. All of them have found that past interventions have not generally advanced their interests and have often proven contrary to their interests.

For several decades now I've been dishing out advice to Westerners who come to Asia looking to save the place. It goes like this:

When you see people doing things that make no sense to you, don't assume that they are stupid, insane, or incompetent. Assume that there's something in the picture that you don't see

It works just as well in the opposite direction:

If you look at other countries and consistently see behaviour that seems ridiculous to you, don't assume that they are incompetent ditherers. Assume that there are other factors in their picture that you aren't aware of.

People who don't do what you think they should do aren't necessarily incompetent. They're just balancing your agenda with a lot of other agendas and priorities, many of which are a lot more important to them.

It would be wonderful in "the global community" or "the UN", or anybody other than the US could somehow escort Africa (or a dozen or so countries within Africa, before M-A comes and reminds me that they're all different) from point C to point G without passing through points D, E, and F along the way, but realistically it's not going to happen. Even if everyone on SWJ agreed that it should, it still wouldn't. Early intervention in particular is not going to happen: there's no multilateral decision-making process to support it and a general consensus has emerged that intervention should be a last resort, not a default reaction.

Like it or not, there is no global cop. Nobody wants the job or can afford the job, and taking that job isn't in anyone's interest.

In my response to you (the first in a while) I attempted to lay it out in the most simple terms using your terminology and what do I get in response?

A theoretical and philosophical piece which does not deal directly with the specifics.

As a kid I watched Superman in the comics fight for "truth, justice and the American Way" and over time (50 years) have observed how America has degenerated into a culture where everything is negotiable. A pretty lamentable state of affairs.

The first Principle of War is "the selection and maintenance of the aim" (the US just call it Objective). Now every Officer Cadet if asked what the aim for post election Ivory Coast should have been should have been able to produce something like this (or be given a train ticket home):

The aim is to ensure a peaceful transition of power to the newly elected President of the Ivory Coast.

Select the aim and then maintain it... difficult to do if you come from a culture where nothing is fixed and everything is negotiable.

If doing this exercise with 18/19 year old officer cadets one would then get into a discussion about the what ifs. What if the present incumbent refuses to step down? What if a section of the military mutinies? etc etc.

Presumably this was done by the UN peacekeeping forces and also the French forces in country although there is no evidence that they did this as there does not seem to have been any serious attempt to seek additional specialised ground forces to cater for the what ifs and worst case scenarios when things started to go pear shaped.

That the country was allowed to slip back into civil war is both negligent and incompetent and criminally negligent on behalf of ECOWAS, the AU, the UN and the world in general.

And I say to you that to allow the Ivory Coast to slip back into civil war so that they can gain the experience of fighting for political change with the attendant massive human cost is as outrageous in the post year 2010 era as it is ... (self imposed censorship)

JMA
04-10-2011, 09:56 AM
There has been no military interventions led by the UN since Corean war and Shabba war in DRC. That means since the 60.
We can look at desert storm as a UN military intervention carried out by a coalition of powers with UN mandat. But what is different from the 2 previous engagement is that no one did it under the UN flag. (Debatable, I know)

What Ivory Coast is demonstrating is that there is a need now to come back to military intervention under UN flag. We cannot just let democratic process being droped down in Africa just because there are too many local interrest and not enough international interrests (or too much for some countries as France in that particular case).

Perhaps we need to return to first principles. There is peacekeeping and there is peacemaking. In the Ivory Coast the UN was engaged in a peacekeeping exercise and in that it failed in a spectacular fashion as with UN Rwanda, Bosinia and Darfur operations.

Did the eariler UNSC resolutions give the UN peacekeeping force the "teeth" to keep-the-peace? By Res-1975(?) they were given the Libyan type authority to use whatever means necessary to protect civilians. So what they and the French do? Protect European civilians, allow the North to invade the South, fire on Gbagbo and his military bases and totally ignore the Ivorian civilians (whose protection they were specifically charged).

But to be fair the success of the Libyan campaign has been hugely over-blown and really apart from the enforcing of the no-fly-zone and halting Gaddafi's march on Bengazi civilians elsewhere (Misrata, Zintan etc) have been fed to the wolves. Equally pathetic execution and not under any UN control.

So by what mechanism would the UN be empowered to keep-the-peace?

Would we ever see the UN force on the ground being authorised to act immediately if the situation demands without having to wait for a new UNSC resolution?


I would really support JMA point on the fact that Outtara, even if he did cheat, just as Gbagbo, has won the elections!
We need a commitement from UNSC to act! Chinese did it in Lybia by buying the rebels oil. There is a need to increase political pressure at UNSC on the 5 guys who decide and nuke Gbagbo forces once for all. UN have the control of air (even without the french)! This should be possible to take down Gbagbo heavy artillery, mortars and armored vehicules.
Once it's done for good, Outtara troops can clean up the place with air support and strike straignt to Gbagbo HQ.

Yes he won and that was agreed by all the election monitors etc. The transition should be as smooth as in western Europe and where there is the potential for it not to happen like in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Ivory Coast there must be a means of enforcing the will of the people.

Here we need to bear in mind the Hamas example (for the future in the Middle East and North Africa) where the will of the people place a government in power which had unacceptable policies and beliefs to some major powers. The will of the people must prevail but that does not preclude certain countries from refusing to "recognise" that government or fund it or otherwise if they find its policies and beliefs abhorrent.

This should be applied to the Ouattara government when finally installed. Full recognition and acceptance and even full diplomatic recognition should be withheld subject to the investigation and prosecution of "war crimes" in the current period.

So I am more than a little concerned about Ouattara's forces cleaning up anything. I know and you know what that means in Africa. I would suggest that once Gbagbo is out the Northern Forces be required to pull back to the northern side of the buffer zone and the UN take responsibility to police the South until the new government can put as close to an independent force together to carry out that duty.

Extraordinary efforts will be required in the wake of the current violence (when it is finally brought under control).


Keeping this wait and see posture is want makes short wars turn to infinite bloody civil wars.
Saying we will hold every criminal accountable is nice but if you do not have the power to impose the very first step of Right, then it's yelling in the desert.

Exactly. And it is astounding to see countries and supposedly intelligent people placing the human-rights of the likes of Gbagbo, Gaddafi, Mugabe higher than those of millions of the citizens of those countries. But does anyone really care? Nobody cares.

Certainly at UNSC level there is Russia and China with a predictably negative veto power which makes pre-emptive action for the good (humanitarian reasons) very difficult.

This is why more people than would care to admit are begrudgingly accepting that when all else fails GWB's unilateralism is probably what must happen. This could be by France, Britain a neighbouring state, whatever.

M-A Lagrange
04-10-2011, 06:48 PM
One of the difficulties faced by the UN is that they need to be inited by local governments.
In Ivory Coast, for once since long, we see the local legal government asking for UN to interviene militarily. According to Reuters, ONUCI and Licorne interviene to destroy Gbagbo heavy weapons located in his personal residence.
The only constrain is to keep Gbagbo alive so he can meet his friends in The Hage. :D

davidbfpo
04-10-2011, 08:50 PM
Two reports on the repeated French & UN action, helicopter gunships attacking Gbagbo's heavy weapons (I assume these to be 120mm mortars); BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13030543 and Daily Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/cotedivoire/8441674/Ivory-Coast-UN-and-French-helicopter-gunships-attack-Laurent-Gbagbo-residence.html

I was intrigued by these sentences, in the later report:
Among the French troops in the country are special forces and foreign legion units, who say privately that if the political will was there, they could remove Mr Gbagbo within days.
But a diplomatic source said that because of its fraught history in the country, and its commitments in Libya and Afghanistan, it is reluctant to get more involved.

"It might support and make suggestions, perhaps even be the hand in glove by offering some training to the (Mr Ouattara's Republican forces) but could not be seen to be taking its own military action," he said. He added that part of the reason for the reversals in fortunes were that both sides are prone to exaggeration, meaning they are often seen to lose ground they never entirely held.

M-A Lagrange
04-10-2011, 09:46 PM
Thanks David for including links in english. Unfortunatelly I do not have time to search for it.

My personnal comment would be that Legionnaires and SF are right but it's rather linked to the difficult post-war context and IC-France relations that France is not willing. Lybia and Afgha are skeep goats in that particular case.

Dayuhan
04-10-2011, 10:34 PM
As a kid I watched Superman in the comics fight for "truth, justice and the American Way" and over time (50 years) have observed how America has degenerated into a culture where everything is negotiable. A pretty lamentable state of affairs.

Superman was fiction, even in the 50s. The US wasn't exactly a champion of freedom in those days either. We were more likely to be found knocking down elected governments and democracies and installing dictators than the other way around... a truly lamentable state of affairs. Getting elected didn't help Mossadegh much, or Allende, or Arias, or Bosch, or Goulart, etc. Hard to see how America has "degenerated" from those days... when was the last time the US overthrew a democracy and installed a dictatorship? Stopping that nonsense is an improvement, it seems to me.


The first Principle of War is "the selection and maintenance of the aim" (the US just call it Objective). Now every Officer Cadet if asked what the aim for post election Ivory Coast should have been should have been able to produce something like this (or be given a train ticket home):

The aim is to ensure a peaceful transition of power to the newly elected President of the Ivory Coast.

Select the aim and then maintain it... difficult to do if you come from a culture where nothing is fixed and everything is negotiable.

Again you miss the central point... whose aim is this supposed to be? Whose objective?

Officer cadets don't make policy. Neither do officers, or military forces. They execute policies made by governments, and I don't think any government anywhere ever adopted a policy of preventing civil war in the Ivory Coast. Even if they had, that policy goal would have to be balanced against other policy goals, such as, in the US case, the goal of scaling back military intervention and refraining from unilateral intervention.

Is there a culture on the planet where everything is fixed and non-negotiable? I doubt it. If the US ever tried to play Surperman and commit itself to non-negotiably protecting everyone, everywhere, all the time, the US would quickly crumble. The US hasn't the resources or the ability to do that. Nobody does.


That the country was allowed to slip back into civil war is both negligent and incompetent and criminally negligent on behalf of ECOWAS, the AU, the UN and the world in general.

It's not negligent, because it's not the responsibility or the obligation of the world, the UN, or Ecowas, or of any country, to prevent civil war in the Ivory Coast, or anywhere else. The world has never assigned anyone the role of Superman, nor would the world ever tolerate anyone being appointed to that role, because everyone knows that anyone appointed to that role would use the position to advance their own interests.

Is negligence and incompetence responsible for not freeing the North Koreans or Burmese or Zimbabweans from capricious tyranny? For allowing the anarchic destruction of Somalia or the mess in the DRC? Easy enough to go on... the world's probably in better shape now than it's been in my lifetime, but there's no shortage of merde floating around in the pool. If so, whose incompetence and negligence? Easy enough to point the finger and say that somebody (somebody else, naturally) ought to fix all the mess, and easy enough to accuse those who don't of negligence, incompetence, degeneracy, etc, but in real, practical terms, it is not anyone's responsibility to clean up the rest of the world, and any government that tried to take the job on would be betraying its responsibility to its own people.

Great powers and empires don't generllly crumble because they fail to assert themselves abroad. They crumble because they over assert themselves, try to do too much, waste their resources on fights that do not serve their interests. Whatever desire the US, France, and Britain have to play Superman and Save The World has to be balanced against the reality that intervening in other people's problems is not their responsibility, is expensive, quickly becomes unpopular with the voters and around the world, easily creates adverse unintended consequences, and in the past has generally not advanced their interests.

JMA
04-11-2011, 05:36 AM
Superman was fiction, even in the 50s. The US wasn't exactly a champion of freedom in those days either. We were more likely to be found knocking down elected governments and democracies and installing dictators than the other way around... a truly lamentable state of affairs. Getting elected didn't help Mossadegh much, or Allende, or Arias, or Bosch, or Goulart, etc. Hard to see how America has "degenerated" from those days... when was the last time the US overthrew a democracy and installed a dictatorship? Stopping that nonsense is an improvement, it seems to me.

So I suppose then you accept that the current culture is one where everything is negotiable.

The Cold War and the actions that took place during that time were only necessary because Roosevelt gave Stalin half of Europe. The world (and not only the US) paid a high price for that incompetence.


Again you miss the central point... whose aim is this supposed to be? Whose objective?

No, you miss the point. It is surely simple to expect the will of the people to be honoured, yes? Given unfortunate precedent in Kenya and Zimbabwe it became more important for the will of the people to be honoured with regard to election results than to open the door more of the same across the continent and maybe the world.

Now if you don't care at all about the will of the people being subverted or that thousands, hundreds of thousands maybe millions will be brutalised in the process then I question your basic humanity.


Officer cadets don't make policy. Neither do officers, or military forces. They execute policies made by governments, and I don't think any government anywhere ever adopted a policy of preventing civil war in the Ivory Coast. Even if they had, that policy goal would have to be balanced against other policy goals, such as, in the US case, the goal of scaling back military intervention and refraining from unilateral intervention.

What I am suggesting is that the process is so simple that even 18/19 year old officer cadets can and do understand the process. It is the politicians who seem to find the basic logical approach taught/developed/honed at most (certainly western) officer schools almost entirely impossible to understand.

I am not talking about the US here. I accept that the US is bankrupt financially and has lost the will for almost anything other than destructive inter political party fights in Congress. If the US has run out of steam there are other who have not quite reached that state yet (France, Britain) even if they lack the means to effectively exert themselves internationally.

This is why I have suggested that given the limitation of resources and the means for a protracted intervention such interventions should be well timed (early) and short, sharp and extremely violent.

Had this approach been adopted in Ivory Coast some time ago (certainly before the violence started) then a lot of grief would have been avoided. But once again dithering by the diplomatic community let the whole issue slide back into civil war for the attendant horrendous consequences. Unless you can list a few local, regional etc countries who actually wanted a return to civil war after a collapse in the diplomatic process.


Is there a culture on the planet where everything is fixed and non-negotiable? I doubt it. If the US ever tried to play Surperman and commit itself to non-negotiably protecting everyone, everywhere, all the time, the US would quickly crumble. The US hasn't the resources or the ability to do that. Nobody does.

The US had its chance to play this role in world affairs and sadly did not do a good job of it mainly because of the apparent inability to elect competent presidents (as opposed to charismatic, well packaged products). It has been discussed elsewhere here that the US has often attempted well intentioned interventions which have not worked out for a number of reasons mainly because the politicians has tried to micro-manage the process.

The lamentable situation has a lot to do with that fool Clemenceau who came up with the cute "War is too important a matter to be left to the military." This has been turned on its head where the converse is now true where it is true that not only war but governing a country is too serious a business to leave in the hands of kids with a college education and access to Google.

One look at the US spending and one will quickly realise that there are other reasons for the US's current financial crisis other than merely through military over reach. But then you knew that.

(had to run will deal with the rest later)

davidbfpo
04-11-2011, 09:14 AM
On breakfast BBC Radio there was a report that a large French armoured column was being assembled in their Abidjan barracks for a unknown mission.

Backwards Observer
04-11-2011, 09:30 AM
What next?

Apres moi le deluge...

The Expression "Apres moi le deluge", and Its Classical Antecedents - Tradicion Clasica (Spain, English Site) - 13/1/06 (http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.com/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html)

JMA
04-11-2011, 10:31 AM
It's not negligent, because it's not the responsibility or the obligation of the world, the UN, or Ecowas, or of any country, to prevent civil war in the Ivory Coast, or anywhere else. The world has never assigned anyone the role of Superman, nor would the world ever tolerate anyone being appointed to that role, because everyone knows that anyone appointed to that role would use the position to advance their own interests.

Is negligence and incompetence responsible for not freeing the North Koreans or Burmese or Zimbabweans from capricious tyranny? For allowing the anarchic destruction of Somalia or the mess in the DRC? Easy enough to go on... the world's probably in better shape now than it's been in my lifetime, but there's no shortage of merde floating around in the pool. If so, whose incompetence and negligence? Easy enough to point the finger and say that somebody (somebody else, naturally) ought to fix all the mess, and easy enough to accuse those who don't of negligence, incompetence, degeneracy, etc, but in real, practical terms, it is not anyone's responsibility to clean up the rest of the world, and any government that tried to take the job on would be betraying its responsibility to its own people.

Great powers and empires don't generllly crumble because they fail to assert themselves abroad. They crumble because they over assert themselves, try to do too much, waste their resources on fights that do not serve their interests. Whatever desire the US, France, and Britain have to play Superman and Save The World has to be balanced against the reality that intervening in other people's problems is not their responsibility, is expensive, quickly becomes unpopular with the voters and around the world, easily creates adverse unintended consequences, and in the past has generally not advanced their interests.

You don't have a clue do you.

We sit with the result of the US, France, Britain, Russia, China trying to exert themselves globally. Now we have the interesting phenomenon of the US having been a major part of screwing a lot of stuff are now wanting to walk away saying it is no longer their problem. The one voice of sense out of the US is from Stan who says that the US should at least try to fix what they have been part of creating.

The "OK so we screwed it all up but are still going to walk away" people are from this everything is negotiable mindset I speak about. Not nice people. While I am not surprised the Arabs are taking to the street to bring about change I remain amazed the US people are not taking to the streets.

It should be noted that it is the P5 (those with UNSC veto) that are the main culprits in all this. They screwed it all up and seem to want to keep it that way. The AU also wants to use its power to keep all the thugs and murderers (the heads of state of member countries) in power as a giant "crime ring" of sorts - the Mafia has nothing on this crowd.

Dayuhan
04-11-2011, 12:27 PM
The "OK so we screwed it all up but are still going to walk away" people are from this everything is negotiable mindset I speak about. Not nice people. While I am not surprised the Arabs are taking to the street to bring about change I remain amazed the US people are not taking to the streets.

The US certainly has its share of responsibility for screwing things up, but we aren't the only ones by any means. The idea that the US can somehow "fix" any of this seems to me extremely unlikely: our attempts to "help" in the past (like our noble crusade to save the world from Communism) often managed to make things a good deal worse.

I don't see any great enthusiasm among the places we screwed up for salvation coming form the US (I live in a place where the US screwed up royally). For the most part people would rather see us stay away, for excellent reasons: they haven't had great experiences with US intervention.

Have you noticed that East Asia and Latin America, both of which saw more than their share of American screwups, managed to put themselves in much better order once the US backed off and stopped messing around in their internal affairs?

The solution to the problems created by to dumb intervention isn't smart intervention: intervention that seems smart today often seems excruciatingly stupid tomorrow (the "Kirkpatrick doctrine" is a classic example). The answer to the problems created by dumb intervention is less intervention, IMO.

Do you see any evidence that the world at large wants the US - or anyone - to put on a superhero suit and go charging around trying to solve everybody else's problems, even the problems it had a role in creating?

JMA
04-11-2011, 01:37 PM
On breakfast BBC Radio there was a report that a large French armoured column was being assembled in their Abidjan barracks for a unknown mission.

I could have sworn I responded to this earlier... but maybe did there was a glitch.

I had said (wanted to say) that Gbagbo should be happy to surrender to French forces rather than the cut throats surrounding his palace. Just heard from TV that French Special Forces snatched Gbagbo from his palace and have handed him over to Ouattara.

M-A Lagrange
04-11-2011, 03:03 PM
Well now the real battle will start: rebuild Ivory Coast and for Outtara impose a legitimacy from the vote and not the gun and even less from the French SF as it could/will be perceived by Gbagbo followers.

But that a f$%&*#g good news for Africa.:D

motorfirebox
04-11-2011, 06:13 PM
Gentlemen, prepare your pangas. The next massacre will be held in 5... 4... 3...

JMA
04-12-2011, 02:51 AM
The US certainly has its share of responsibility for screwing things up, but we aren't the only ones by any means. The idea that the US can somehow "fix" any of this seems to me extremely unlikely: our attempts to "help" in the past (like our noble crusade to save the world from Communism) often managed to make things a good deal worse.

I don't see any great enthusiasm among the places we screwed up for salvation coming form the US (I live in a place where the US screwed up royally). For the most part people would rather see us stay away, for excellent reasons: they haven't had great experiences with US intervention.

Have you noticed that East Asia and Latin America, both of which saw more than their share of American screwups, managed to put themselves in much better order once the US backed off and stopped messing around in their internal affairs?

The solution to the problems created by to dumb intervention isn't smart intervention: intervention that seems smart today often seems excruciatingly stupid tomorrow (the "Kirkpatrick doctrine" is a classic example). The answer to the problems created by dumb intervention is less intervention, IMO.

Do you see any evidence that the world at large wants the US - or anyone - to put on a superhero suit and go charging around trying to solve everybody else's problems, even the problems it had a role in creating?

I am going to let this conversation go as I can see the anti-anti-communist undertones of your position coming through. If you want to be intellectually honest you need to place the collapse of the Soviet Union in your timeline and connect the dots accordingly.