By Nkrumah M. Mulmi Esq.
Nairobi, Kenya
Please allow me space to analyze the Ivorian election debacle, offer solutions and to contribute to the international dialogue that has ensued.
This crisis has become a mirror for the entire African Continent and West Africa in particular to see itself on the international stage. It also presents to the region opportunities for an internal debate about the serious neglected issues in our development process such as the ownership and quality of African political leadership, the effectiveness of our model of governance, the façade of national institutions, cultural identity, and the ever lingering remote control nature of political decision-making as demonstrated by the pre and post November 28 Ivorian elections.
We should not only be ashamed of what is taking place but be glad for the opportunity that these issues are now front and center on the African agenda.
The UN can never bring lasting peace to African Conflicts
My purpose is to raise the consciousness and regional public opinion for us to take collective ownership of all the spaces whether they are spiritual, economic, political, social, academic, etc. over our destiny.
As free people we must do this because the Spirit of God lives within us and He has given us all that it takes to heal our land; bring justice to the oppressed; power to the weak and prosperity to the poor. Let me cut to the chase: we don’t need or want a United Nations backed solution that leads to violent confrontation that will necessitate military intervention/occupation by more Colonial armies or a surrogate ECOWAS force on Ivorian territory.
I am a big supporter of the promise of the UN but not in its current form. It is widely accepted that this institution is in great need of an overhaul because in its current Post World War II structure only the diabolical ambition and agendas of the five permanent Security Council members get this kind of special attention under the guise of support for democratic electoral governance.
(Ref: the deafening silence on recent fraudulent elections in Egypt, Togo, and Gabon, and the shameful impunity of the football stadium massacre in Guinea etc.) These are not conspiracy theories but rather facts supported by empirical data that any astute observer knows, even without the advantage of WikiLeaks.
The governance structure of the very United Nations Organization (UNO) itself is grossly undemocratic as the vast majority of nations in the General Assembly know all too well. The application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter has been used as a blunt object against governments when their interests are at odds with the big five.
Where are the institutions of the so-called International Community since the Football Stadium Massacre in Guinea that violated so many of our women? Only China and Russia sometimes try to curtail some of the aggressive tendencies of their fellow colleagues when it is convenient by the use of the veto, but each of them impose on the rest their own narrow economic interests.
And even when there are not unanimous, the Anglo-American-French post 1945 economic axis find other means such as non UN-approved economic sanctions to maintain their neo-colonial control and expansion across the entire African continent. Why is it that we still have French troops in African States forty plus years after so called independence with the connivance of our appropriated institutions?
This current international gangsterism where weak African institutions are being appropriated to deliver a government in Ivory Coast to perpetuate the interest of foreign powers is not only shameful but an act of regional treason. If Nigeria is seeking western support for its claim to a permanent Africa seat on draft proposals for a reformed UN Security Council then the people of the Ivory Coast should not be the sacrificial lamb in that ambition.
Let me disabuse any of the simplistic notions that it is President Laurent Gbagbo’s political interest that I am defending. Instead I am disgusted with the lack of recognition of how entire ethnic groups across Africa have been manipulated, fattened with the economic and political pie of the state at the expense of other ethnic groups by the constantly reinvented colonial authorities or their agents.
I am defending the millions of Ivoirians, the Ivorian southern middle class that can’t seem to reconcile themselves with a government under a President Allasan Ouatarra. I am also defending the millions of Ivoirians in the North who can’t seem to reconcile themselves with a government under a President Gbagbo. Simply replacing one region of dominance over the other under the guise of democratic electoral governance is not the solution to sustainable reconciliation.
I wonder if Mr. Y. J Choi, the UN Secretary General Special Representative is aware of the psychological, political and economic complexities of his actions or does he even care. The UN has failed even a modicum of reconciliation between the North and the South in the Ivoirian political equation which was a legal condition precedent to the holding of elections. It is clearly stated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1765 mandate of the United Nations Operations in Cote Ivoire (UNOCI) that credible elections could only be held in an environment where certain benchmarks of national unity have been met.
The UN Special Representative should never have committed the UNO to an election process in an environment where freedom and fairness cannot be guaranteed and where the Northern Forces still maintain secret arms. What is the resistance to open, transparent and independent verification of the Nov 28 election results? Do they believe that they are the only ones who can add and subtract?
The scrutiny of the conduct of the elections in the North by the independent election observers suggests daylight electoral fraud with a certain amount of collusion by officials of UNOCI. In some regions the number of votes cast is greater than the total number of voters.
According to leaked independent reports by one of the international Election Observers in one region, there are 159,788 votes to 48,400 voters on the electoral register in the North. Reuter’s News Agency reported that some election observers were prevented from observing the voting in certain areas in the North and their concerns were ignored by the Electoral Commission.
Even the French Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee has expressed concern about the fairness of the elections in the North and summoned just before Christmas day the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Michele Alliot-Marie to explain certain conduct of French officials and representatives during the voting in that region as well.
A French Parliamentarian Memorandum was sent to Prime Minister Francois Fillon, saying that the interests of France and morality in politics wanted them to let the countries of the African Union address the Ivory Coast and it was certainly not the former colony to impose its views. So the conduct of UNOCI and the entire independent verification institutions in the Ivorian election needs to be investigated and audited to determine what really happened leading to this election crisis.
Perhaps the African Union could convene a team of neutral election experts comprising judges and jurists to go into the North and elsewhere in Ivory Coast and investigate and report on all the allegations of fraud. This could be coordinated with neutral French Parliamentarians who are interested in getting to the bottom of these allegations. Without such an investigation a cloud of suspicion will forever hang over the UN especially as an impartial arbiter of elections across Africa.
So there are many unanswered questions and only a truly independent investigation would uncover the facts and establish the legitimacy that none of the candidates can now rightfully claim. I am sure that the UN Secretary General Special Representative and his team tried to meet those targets of their mandate set out under the Security Council Resolution and the Peace Accord and much time had been spent back and forth because of the lack of trust between the two major camps of the election. But even with the UN’s best of intentions the African facade of tribal reconciliation is too complex and intricate particularly when mixed with the powerful commercial and political force of an obstinate colonial amphibian.
It leads me to the conclusion that as an institution the UNO really does not possess the African cultural intelligence and capacity to address the tribal mentality combined with disingenuous colonial enterprises to even appreciate much less resolve African conflicts. This is something for the AU to consider as it transforms itself into an organization that takes a more direct, pre-emptive and assertive role in conflict management and governance issues of its member states.
Background to the Conflict in Ivory Coast
The background of the conflict in the Ivory Coast is primarily ethnic, regional and cultural. The southern elite have had a long partnership with the French Colonial authorities and have come to believe that it is there inalienable right to govern the entire Ivory Coast. The French Colonial authorities nurtured and encouraged this dynamic as it suited their commercial enterprises and projects for many years before and since Ivorian independence in 1960.
In fact to the Ivorian Southerner, the Ivorian colonial construct consists mainly of--if not only, of the Southern ethno-geographical groups. To them the Northern ethnic groups are not pure Ivoirians’ but migrant workers from Burkina Faso, Mali and elsewhere.
This cozy relationship between the French and the Southern Ivorian began to unravel after the death of President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, a southerner who presided over a one-Party state and who nurtured the Franco-Southern Ivorian partnership.
So the French have been a guarantor and benefactor of the alienation of the North by the South for years but have now realized that their interests are in jeopardy under President Laurent Gbagbo’s and his southern establishment. It is this falling out between the French and the Southerner which informs this peculiar African conflict.
The French and the Northern regions wish to now establish a new partnership which displaces the Southerner, which now fears their own alienation in this colonial construct. Thus when I hear African leaders parroting the US State Department and French Foreign Minister that they have offered President Gbagbo safe passage into exile, it betrays the naivety of these mindless surrogates of the peculiar Ivorian dynamics.
I wonder if they are also going to extend this offer of safe exile to all the millions of Ivoirians in the south as well. These are the southern elites comprising technocrats, the military and the educated class. What about the millions of ordinary Gbagbos who are determined to never be ruled by a Northerner and also who themselves fear reprisals after years of alienation against the North.
To manage this conflict requires recognition that the disunity and hatred between the North and South in the Ivory Coast is much deeper than one or a few individuals. Characterizing this conflict as merely about the refusal of just another African Head of State to step down after an electoral defeat is not only factually incorrect but also very shallow. What is unequivocally clear is that the pre-election benchmarks set out under the UN Security Council Resolution mandating that the conduct of the UNOCI as well as the African Union-brokered Ouagadougou Peace Accord were not achieved. Secondly, it was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Why? Because the African Union should have insisted that the French military completely leave Ivory Coast and certainly not join as a signatory to those agreements.
The United Nations should never have allowed French soldiers or operatives in the Ivorian peace building process, because the North-South divide is a French creation that has metamorphosized over the years into an ethnic and cultural conflict of magnanimous proportions.
The very presence of the French military and its large expatriate population only serve to undermine the healing and reconciliation envisaged under those agreements. This North-South conflict existed long before the Nov. 28th election and will continue after a President Gbagbo or a President Oauttara government if genuine, but non-meddling support is not given by non-interested international friends of the Ivory Coast.
Also this relatively new strategy of using African surrogate States or institutions to achieve foreign objectives against another African State is a development that will only divide the African Union. What is required is a mutual and genuine recognition particularly by the Southern Ivorian establishment that the people of the North are equally part of the Ivorian multiethnic construct and should share in governance.
With this in mind a new constitution is required with a new impetus to embrace each other. The opportunity for a new African statesmanship first between these two electoral candidates exists for them to abandon their claim to the Presidency and work together in a transitional arrangement.
They should meet and isolate themselves in a retreat that will draft a new constitution particularly with electoral provisions that provide guarantees to disadvantaged ethnic communities. The agenda of this process must be owned and driven by themselves after wide national consultation. It will focus on building faith and trust between the parties.
All international non Ivorian assistance must come through an African Union select group of African Eminent Persons that has at its disposal all the facilities, resources and with its own dispute resolution mechanism. Thus, to achieve reconciliation it is my contention that the UN should divest itself permanently of anymore such misadventures and instead help to capacitate the African Union and other sub regional bodies that will have a better chance of making sense of our realities. And since the AU as an institution lacks financial muscle then perhaps the UN should outsource conflict resolutions to the AU with all the necessary financial support but without political interference.
This conflict requires home-grown models and strategies not the same old tried and failed models. The Gacaca Model of conflict resolution has worked well in Rwanda and there are other culturally specific models around the Continent that needs to be invested in. The missing element is the absence of independent African policy researchers and thinkers to draw out the peculiar African solutions to such crises.
Violent Confrontation and economic isolation are not the solution
The Bretton Woods institutions have already announced that they will not be doing business with the Laurent Gbagbo’s government. That is not surprising. Even the African Development Bank and the West African Monetary Union are under European pressure from behind the scenes to economically suffocate the government’s ability to operate and function. I don’t blame President-elect Ouattara for smiling and saying that he will not meet and discuss with President Gbagbo for a peaceful settlement.
Why should he when the behind the scenes Nicolas Sarkozy government-led international community has handed him all the cards? For all this support I wonder what lucrative no-bid contracts are being promised behind the curtain in newly offshore oil blocks and agricultural concessions. There is nothing for free. There must be some compensation for all this international support however subtle and discreet. Perhaps you may call it cynical but I say it is plausible reality.
I submit that none of this will bring lasting peace and development to the Ivorian people. I honestly don’t know who won the November 28th Election. But what I can say is that serious allegations of widespread fraud, violence and intimidation occurred in the North and the Independent Electoral Commission must be made to give an account on those allegations.
I would very much like to see the details of the Report that was submitted by the initial African Union Special Envoy President Thabo Mbeki on the situation in Ivory Coast. Why was he suddenly replaced by Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who had already made his emotional outburst when he told the media that President Gbagbo should be gotten rid of by military force? Nevertheless, it is still my hope his presence will help Mr. Ouatarra move into a transitional arrangement.
I credit him for getting Candidate Ouatarra to accept the principle of an inclusive Cabinet, albeit a 75-25 percent Ouatarra-Gbagbo ratio. That is a start but not enough to reach a more balanced and negotiated settlement. I blame the French government and certain powerful individuals carrying the label of the United Nations for drowning-out the authentic African voices of reason and measured diplomacy.
They are the ones behind Candidate Ouatarra’s hardened position of stoking and escalating this crisis towards military confrontation. Some of these operatives from behind were the very ones who masterminded this crisis by illegally certifying the electoral process to be free and fair when in fact there is no verifiable basis, either in fact or in law to have done so.
The UN Representative never even read the judgment of the Constitutional Council to at least establish if there was any truth to those allegations. Why should those allegations deemed credible by a Supreme Court be disregarded? Did the UN mandate in any way suspend the authority of the Supreme Court under the Constitution of the Ivory Coast as the highest dispute resolution branch of government? Furthermore, if the UN Special Representative was not satisfied with the integrity of the membership of the Constitutional Council then he should have raised the alarm and call for a re-constituted body as a prerequisite to the election as it has been their mandate to encourage a free and fair election.
Perhaps there were also allegations of fraud in the South or elsewhere that candidate Ouatarra wanted to have investigated and those should form part of the investigation as well. But to simply ignore all the complaints and state that even if candidate Gbagbo’s allegations are true that it would still put candidate Ouatarra ahead is a contempt for due process of law and has put the prestige and office of the UN in legal jeopardy. I don’t say that it was intentional but that is the effect.
That extra-judicial determination by the UN Special Representative is a judgment only to be made by a Court after consideration of the evidence. I confess that I have not read the judgment and cannot render an opinion about it. My only argument is that the judgment should have at least been read and considered before the certification of the elections took place.
The problem for the South Korean UN Special Representative and his principal, Ban Ki Moon is that they have to save face for themselves and for their Country and may lack the courage to acknowledge the error and take remedial steps to reverse the certification. This would entail the launch of an independent investigation where evidence is collected and presented to the Constitutional Court with the opportunity given both sides to present their case for reconsideration under the watchful eyes of a more broad-based international community.
There is also the ECOWAS Community Court in Abuja as well as the African Human Rights Court in Banjul Gambia –all of which are invested with jurisdiction. This would also require President Gbagbo to withdraw his claim to the Presidency and submit himself to the process for an internationally-backed independent investigation as well as that of Candidate Ouatarra.
I know this maybe unlikely but the process needs transparency, accountability, and fairness under law. That is what either side would lack if either men storm their way into the Presidency without legal sanctification. Instead of constant political threats and clandestine military maneuvers, it is the legal avenue that this conflict is missing.
Let’s build and not subvert African Institutions!
Notwithstanding the current outdated structure of the UN, the promise of this institution is still a cause for hope for millions of progressive peoples who yearn to be truly free from neocolonial bondage. The problem is that the international community is represented by a United Nations that has been appropriated by a small group of countries.
So the UN is still a work in progress but we in Africa and in this region must wake up and not look to the UN as a panacea or the only road to prosperity and democratic electoral governance. The UN cannot come to do for us that which we are more than capable of doing for ourselves. Yes, we often fail but Africa is free and we must keep trying, learning and by dam, fake it until we do it right, even when times get difficult; when we are unsure of our way; when the enemy brings the bribe, no matter how long it takes.
The leadership of AU and ECOWAS should have predicted this conflict; raised the alarm and take steps to avert it. The first act of leadership is to take responsibility. They have people on the ground in Ivory Coast and they should have seen it coming.
The problem with many of our leaders is that they casually turn the fate of our people over into the hands of well-meaning strangers to take ownership but who lack understanding of Africa’s realities.
Let me hasten to say that the UN has done some good work in Liberia as a facilitator of peace but there are other places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo where a conflict exist with deep historical and international dimensions but where the UN is nothing but a self-perpetuating reinforcement devise of the very problem it came to relieve.
One thing is clear is that the UN should never be used to fill the void of indigenous leadership created when there is an African conflict. Instead, authentic regional institutions should do that with the temporary financial and logistical facilitation of the UN and other well meaning multilateral institutions. So let us be clear of the fact that the United Nations Organization was not created with Africa in mind.
It is not the forum to resolve any conflict in Africa. As an organization it cannot bring peace to conflicts that its very core founders mischievously constructed.
As an example the Kenyan post election crisis and violence in December 2007 did not lead to UN-sponsored military intervention where hundreds of lives were lost and millions of dollars of property damage went up in flames.
Yet still both the incumbent President and the Opposition leader in that Country came together and ended the violence, formed a Grand Coalition government that is exemplary for countries around Africa to emulate. It is still a work in progress. It is under the leadership of this very government that the World Bank is projecting between 5-7 percent growth rates in 2011.
It is not perfect but this transition government has since conducted a national constitutional referendum and passed a new and progressive Constitution into law, and established a firm foundation for addressing corruption and impunity on a scale never seen before in Kenya.
That crisis was averted by a Non-UN group of African Eminent Persons including Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, Graca Michel-Mandela and other regional leaders. Despite the snickering, here is a good example of African solutions for African problems. It is an experience for sober reflection by all Africans of good will and well-meaning international friends. It could have turned out much worst and for that we should be proud.
Yes, it is true that the UN was invited by the Ivorian Government to broker peace between Government forces and the Northern Rebels under the Ouagadougou Peace Agreement in March 2007. However that Agreement did not suspend the Constitution of Ivory Coast. The sovereignty of the Ivorian nation remained and still does. I am not aware on any legal basis for any assertion about Ivory Coast losing its sovereignty.
Everyone is familiar with the statement in Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter which states that nothing in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction, except where there are enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
The mandate of UNOCI under Security Council resolution 1765 is for the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Côte d’Ivoire “to certify that all stages of the electoral process provide all the necessary guarantees for the holding of open, free, fair and transparent presidential and legislative elections in accordance with international standards…” Isn’t this a periodic and procedural process that demands certification at various stages of the electoral processes as opposed to a mere end-of-voting and counting certification event? Is the UNOCI authorized to make military threats or to mobilize support for military intervention and unbridled interference in the domestic domain of a state?
Furthermore, article 2 (4) states that all UN members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Another outstanding question left to be determined is whether the UN Special Representative Mr. Y.J Choi was in any position to properly certify that all stages of the Ivorian November 28th electoral process was free and fair and whether he can verifiably guarantee that they were conducted in accordance with international standards. Can the UN Special Representative tell us why he negligently certified provisional results which pursuant to the Ivorian Constitution must first be validated by the Constitutional Council?
The United Nations Secretary General owes an explanation to the world and Africa in particular on these questions. A careful perusal of the wording of Security Council Resolution 1765 and the Ouagadougou Peace Accords stipulate that a series of measures were to precede the holding of national elections in order to meet the required international standards.
These documents stipulate specific measures including--- the creation of a new Transitional Government; organizing free and fair presidential elections; merging the Forces Nouvelles and the National Defense and Security forces through the establishment of an integrated command centre; dismantling the militias, disarming ex-combatants and enrolling them in civil services programs and replacing the so-called zone of confidence separating north and south with a green line to be monitored by UNOCI.
All this was to be done in coordination between the Government, Rebels, UNOCI and the French Military Forces in the Country. From the very outset the AU and ECOWAS should have raise the alarm that the French military be excluded from these agreements. Suffice it to say that there are too many military interests in the mix to achieve the desired outcomes. I really don’t know what anyone can say to justify the presence of French military in an independent Ivory Coast. Can you see the conflict of interest?
Notwithstanding all the threats of military intervention by an ECOWAS/AU force, the Security Council after a number of meetings has stopped short of authorizing such a force. The UNSC is divided because Russia and China are unwilling to join their hawkish colleagues among the five permanent members and would veto any such enterprise.
Also South Africa as a rotating member has also refrained from supporting the so-called military option and has also voiced concern about certain electoral discrepancies. What is even clearer is that the constant threat of military force is not legitimate under international law and has not had any effect on the de facto President of Ivory Coast and has therefore failed as an effective instrument of negotiation.
Meanwhile these threats only terrorize the innocent people of the region, escalating a humanitarian disaster of internally displaced persons, further sending the regional macro-economic conditions downwards and reinforcing a pretext for military adventurism. The people of the region do not deserve this kind of dishonest leadership.
Mr. Prime Minister/AU Special Envoy Odinga there must be no war in Ivory Coast. Let us agree that no elected President or election is worth the life of one more African child. We must confront injustice but by every other means than through violence, whether state violence, international-sponsored violence or rebellion.
It didn’t work in Kenya’s post election crisis and should not be advocated elsewhere in Africa. You are personally aware of what happens when violence is turned on civilians and the legal international consequences as some of your closest political allies are currently facing the International Criminal Court.
It is equally immoral to stir up the sentiments of the people and send them as human shields to storm buildings manned by soldiers who are only trained to resolve disputes with a fire arm.
These militaries of Africa are trained to kill people and destroy property. There were not instituted to respect human rights and tolerance. Their guns are not aimed at outside aggressors but at their very own people. These are not engineers building roads and dams for development.
It an institution of destruction whether people or property. The recent suffering of Kenya, Liberia and Sierra Leone has enough lessons for our Ivorian neighbors to learn. The peoples of the region including Liberia do not want the Ivoirians to suffer the wanton destruction of lives, property and national infrastructure that we experienced.
The people of Liberia do not want their territory to be used to bring in weapons to wage war against the people of Ivory Coast on either side of the divide. In its wisdom the Ghanaian government has already stated that it will not be contributing any forces to any impending ECOWAS military enterprise. Let there be no more threat of violent confrontation because this issue can only be addressed peacefully.
There is no alternative to peace. Civil war is not an option and anyone calling for that does not have the interest of the people in their hearts. There is enough good will on this continent to resolve disputes and to bring our lost brothers and sisters back into the fold at the rendeveau of victory.
You cannot isolate approximately half of your population, send them into exile and achieve the development goals of the nation. We need every intellectual capital on board, to debate, discuss, and move the national and regional development agenda forward. Let us move in that direction to a place not to settle old scores and tribal rivalry but where post election development can take place dealing with some of the major national issues such as constitutional reform, electoral reform, land reform, human rights, regional integration etc.
This conflict must not be viewed as an opportunity for transferred aggression from Kenya’s post election crisis of 2007. Only the legacy of Kenya’s spirit of reconciliation should be carried from Kenya and East Africa to Ivory Coast and West Africa and I trust that you are familiarizing yourself personally with all the facts and issues of the peculiar nature of this crisis and at the end you would have done your best to build lasting ties between the two regions of the Continent.
Let’s think long-term and take Ownership of our Governance
Electoral governance is not and has never been a panacea for peace and development in a heterogeneous Africa. It’s simply the creation of a new form of polarization that exacerbates ethnic tensions in the African context. Perhaps it is the best known internationally-accepted way but this formula has its limitations. It has never undone the manipulated ethnic conflicts that were sown many years ago across Africa for the commercial interest of Europe.
Every former direct colonial state in Africa still has its portion of these internal conflicts which continue to be the major cause of national strife, poverty and underdevelopment. These conflicts are sharply reflected every four or five years or whenever elections are due in African states. The mismanagement and mal-governance of these ethnic diversities have been the cause of so much conflict on the continent that a way finally needs to be found to transform these false political dichotomies with a tailor-managed and shared consensus-building and decision-making system.
This system will finally provide the basis for the extraction of the huge reservoir of benefits within this multiplicity of diversities. Its aim will be to provide greater participatory governance and away from tribal electoral governance. Then we can transform our diversity into a source of peace, prosperity and unity under a post election political coalition for development.
That is the challenge of all of us and in particular the AU which is the only institution that was created to grapple with such an issue. Electoral governance as practiced in the West does not work at all or well in the African heterogeneous environments and so we must be bold enough to offer new solutions of governance that recognizes this challenge. It must be acknowledged that the Ivorian post election crisis can and will happen more and more in all of the loosely put together African states including populous countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, DRC, and others.
We cannot take the Sudan route of creating more and more land-locked independent states in Africa as the solution. So an informed strategy needs to be put in place after a continent-wide dialogue that will consider various options towards the long journey of building African bridges of unity and common prosperity. What is taking place in the Ivory Coast is the unraveling of the patriotic one-party state comprising mainly of the Southern ethnic groups held together by the late strong-man President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, using French money and military.
As many of these post colonial leaders are dying out and many of the family dynasties are under threat by popular demand for greater participatory governance, a deep void is created which exposes the absence of credible institutions of governance. So let’s not kid ourselves about the falling apart of Ivory Coast because it is inevitable to occur in other parts of Africa as well.
The African Union must step up, fill the void and become more involved in the governance policy direction even if it is to conduct elections itself in some of these states until credible institutions can be established. To do nothing is to allow another African surrogate government to be hatched between Washington and Europe to fill that void for another generation or two.
Steps towards an African Solution in Ivory Coast
A negotiated settlement is being made more difficult by a South Korean UN Representative that is more concerned with saving face than saving an environment conducive for both parties to be brought to the table to heal the Ivorian national divide. As I stated before this national divide is far more complex than just between a former President Laurent Gbagbo and President-elect Allassan Ouatarra, if you like.
Ivory Coast has been a sweet chocolate in the mouth of France for far too long and America wants a piece of the chocolate as well. I know the French are concerned about the break-down of their French African establishment and the very real prospect of the Ivory Coast becoming an encouragement to other satellites in the French orbit. So it will not be easy and demands dedicated African transformative leadership and much courage.
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon should immediately withdraw this naïve Special Representative and some in his entourage like the Frenchman Allain Le Roy, and replace them with a fresh UN team of honest brokers to review the situation on the ground.
The UN should consider President Thabo Mbeki or President Paul Kagame or President Jerry Rawlings to conduct a thorough investigation and report back on this impasse that threatens the entire West African sub-region. The UN would then demonstrate with these initial steps that it is seeking to establish a credible and peaceful atmosphere. In the meantime ECOWAS should immediately stop all movement towards military confrontation and find more productive use of its limited resources such as getting proper legal advice.
What we now have in the Ivory Coast is a situation that requires the African Union to move in with Solomonic wisdom and eclipse the United Nations as a facilitator of peace in that important African state that is trying to find its own way after years of French hegemony. The main issue is not who won and who lost the November Presidential elections. That is a false dichotomy that only exacerbates the ethnic and regional divergences in the Country.
The issue is that the important processes which were to lead up towards electoral governance have failed to unite the various African communities of the Ivorian State at this time. Concentration must now be placed on governance by consensus, reconciliation and ethnic harmony.
Even if the UNO manages to somehow swear in a President-elect Allasanne Ouatarra, that will not bring unity but only governance by force for at least half of the population. The United Nations, AU or ECOWAS, France, the EU or the United States cannot force or dictate to the millions of Ivoirians of approximately half the voting population of people to allow themselves to be governed by someone whom they consider alien to them. It is the same for President Gbagbo as has been demonstrated over the last ten years by the Rebels in the North. Neither of them can independently have an effective government over this divided country.
What is needed now is a cooling-off period in which both sides step-aside and allows a vacant Presidency but where the two major political parties position themselves and appoint two Prime Ministers and a joint cabinet in a transitional government.
The constitution would have to be either suspended or amended to enable this eventuality. This period will serve the purpose of major national reforms such as a new constitution, electoral reforms, land reforms, national reconciliation, and healing. At the end of this period both these men being advanced in years must agree not to offer themselves again but to work towards national political unification and support of younger Ivoirians to fill the void of national leadership.
I challenge both Mr. Gbagbo and Mr. Ouatarra to pick up their android blackberry and start the real process of trust-building.
Conclusion and Glimmers of Hope
The rapid escalation of the crisis by the quick mobilization of diplomatic isolation, economic strangulation, threats of military intervention and flagrant media hyperbole all at once directed against the Ivorian Government is an extremely worrying development because it is completely inconsistent with the established African norms and practices of international relations.
Neither the African Union nor ECOWAS has ever demonstrated the cow-boy mentality when addressing African conflicts. We must not underrate the value of our own best practice of “Quiet-Diplomacy” that has worked in many other crises around Africa. The conflict and crises that precipitated the Nigerian-led ECOMOG intervention into Liberia and Sierra Leone are not comparable to this Ivorian conflict and is in need of African policy experts to help our leaders navigate it.
It is truly sad to see African leader’s cow-tow to external forces to beat the war drum after the catastrophic humanitarian disaster that was caused by ECOMOG to the peoples of Liberia, Sierra Leone and the entire sub-region. Meanwhile what is emerging is a partition of the views of African states into three distinct groups: those adamantly against the use of military intervention force, such as South Africa, Angola, Libya, Togo, Equatorial Guinea, Cape Verde, and Ghana, on one side; and then there are those that insist that military option is part of the solution such as Bukina Faso, Mali, Senegal, and Botswana, and then the others that have left their positions deliberately unknown.
Indeed, African states are not a monolith but the AU Secretariat must be careful not to open itself to Western undue influence as this conflict can do major harm to the African Union.
I am encouraged particularly by the position taken by the Angolan and Ghanaian governments which are signs of courage and which other African states should emulate in their handling of this crisis. The Government of Angola has broken ranks with some of their hawkish peers in the African Union and repudiated the threats of war as a means to address this crisis.
The Angolan Government has been lobbying other African states against this mindless turn of events. Meanwhile the Government of Ghana which shares a border with the Ivory Coast has stated that they will not be sending troops to aid any military intervention force in the Ivory Coast. It is important to note that no other country in West Africa or indeed Africa has the democratic credentials that Ghana has maintained.
So it is a significant sign coupled with the hope that major parts of the Ghanaian political establishment can begin to speak out about the direction that ECOWAS seem to be moving.
In this regard, former President Jerry Rawlings has condemned the flagrant carelessness of the rhetoric of some regional and international leaders in the handling of the Ivorian crisis.
This crisis has become a mirror for the entire African Continent and West Africa in particular to see itself on the international stage. It also presents to the region opportunities for an internal debate about the serious neglected issues in our development process such as the ownership and quality of African political leadership, the effectiveness of our model of governance, the façade of national institutions, cultural identity, and the ever lingering remote control nature of political decision-making as demonstrated by the pre and post November 28 Ivorian elections.
We should not only be ashamed of what is taking place but be glad for the opportunity that these issues are now front and center on the African agenda.
The UN can never bring lasting peace to African Conflicts
My purpose is to raise the consciousness and regional public opinion for us to take collective ownership of all the spaces whether they are spiritual, economic, political, social, academic, etc. over our destiny.
As free people we must do this because the Spirit of God lives within us and He has given us all that it takes to heal our land; bring justice to the oppressed; power to the weak and prosperity to the poor. Let me cut to the chase: we don’t need or want a United Nations backed solution that leads to violent confrontation that will necessitate military intervention/occupation by more Colonial armies or a surrogate ECOWAS force on Ivorian territory.
I am a big supporter of the promise of the UN but not in its current form. It is widely accepted that this institution is in great need of an overhaul because in its current Post World War II structure only the diabolical ambition and agendas of the five permanent Security Council members get this kind of special attention under the guise of support for democratic electoral governance.
(Ref: the deafening silence on recent fraudulent elections in Egypt, Togo, and Gabon, and the shameful impunity of the football stadium massacre in Guinea etc.) These are not conspiracy theories but rather facts supported by empirical data that any astute observer knows, even without the advantage of WikiLeaks.
The governance structure of the very United Nations Organization (UNO) itself is grossly undemocratic as the vast majority of nations in the General Assembly know all too well. The application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter has been used as a blunt object against governments when their interests are at odds with the big five.
Where are the institutions of the so-called International Community since the Football Stadium Massacre in Guinea that violated so many of our women? Only China and Russia sometimes try to curtail some of the aggressive tendencies of their fellow colleagues when it is convenient by the use of the veto, but each of them impose on the rest their own narrow economic interests.
And even when there are not unanimous, the Anglo-American-French post 1945 economic axis find other means such as non UN-approved economic sanctions to maintain their neo-colonial control and expansion across the entire African continent. Why is it that we still have French troops in African States forty plus years after so called independence with the connivance of our appropriated institutions?
This current international gangsterism where weak African institutions are being appropriated to deliver a government in Ivory Coast to perpetuate the interest of foreign powers is not only shameful but an act of regional treason. If Nigeria is seeking western support for its claim to a permanent Africa seat on draft proposals for a reformed UN Security Council then the people of the Ivory Coast should not be the sacrificial lamb in that ambition.
Let me disabuse any of the simplistic notions that it is President Laurent Gbagbo’s political interest that I am defending. Instead I am disgusted with the lack of recognition of how entire ethnic groups across Africa have been manipulated, fattened with the economic and political pie of the state at the expense of other ethnic groups by the constantly reinvented colonial authorities or their agents.
I am defending the millions of Ivoirians, the Ivorian southern middle class that can’t seem to reconcile themselves with a government under a President Allasan Ouatarra. I am also defending the millions of Ivoirians in the North who can’t seem to reconcile themselves with a government under a President Gbagbo. Simply replacing one region of dominance over the other under the guise of democratic electoral governance is not the solution to sustainable reconciliation.
I wonder if Mr. Y. J Choi, the UN Secretary General Special Representative is aware of the psychological, political and economic complexities of his actions or does he even care. The UN has failed even a modicum of reconciliation between the North and the South in the Ivoirian political equation which was a legal condition precedent to the holding of elections. It is clearly stated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1765 mandate of the United Nations Operations in Cote Ivoire (UNOCI) that credible elections could only be held in an environment where certain benchmarks of national unity have been met.
The UN Special Representative should never have committed the UNO to an election process in an environment where freedom and fairness cannot be guaranteed and where the Northern Forces still maintain secret arms. What is the resistance to open, transparent and independent verification of the Nov 28 election results? Do they believe that they are the only ones who can add and subtract?
The scrutiny of the conduct of the elections in the North by the independent election observers suggests daylight electoral fraud with a certain amount of collusion by officials of UNOCI. In some regions the number of votes cast is greater than the total number of voters.
According to leaked independent reports by one of the international Election Observers in one region, there are 159,788 votes to 48,400 voters on the electoral register in the North. Reuter’s News Agency reported that some election observers were prevented from observing the voting in certain areas in the North and their concerns were ignored by the Electoral Commission.
Even the French Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee has expressed concern about the fairness of the elections in the North and summoned just before Christmas day the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Michele Alliot-Marie to explain certain conduct of French officials and representatives during the voting in that region as well.
A French Parliamentarian Memorandum was sent to Prime Minister Francois Fillon, saying that the interests of France and morality in politics wanted them to let the countries of the African Union address the Ivory Coast and it was certainly not the former colony to impose its views. So the conduct of UNOCI and the entire independent verification institutions in the Ivorian election needs to be investigated and audited to determine what really happened leading to this election crisis.
Perhaps the African Union could convene a team of neutral election experts comprising judges and jurists to go into the North and elsewhere in Ivory Coast and investigate and report on all the allegations of fraud. This could be coordinated with neutral French Parliamentarians who are interested in getting to the bottom of these allegations. Without such an investigation a cloud of suspicion will forever hang over the UN especially as an impartial arbiter of elections across Africa.
So there are many unanswered questions and only a truly independent investigation would uncover the facts and establish the legitimacy that none of the candidates can now rightfully claim. I am sure that the UN Secretary General Special Representative and his team tried to meet those targets of their mandate set out under the Security Council Resolution and the Peace Accord and much time had been spent back and forth because of the lack of trust between the two major camps of the election. But even with the UN’s best of intentions the African facade of tribal reconciliation is too complex and intricate particularly when mixed with the powerful commercial and political force of an obstinate colonial amphibian.
It leads me to the conclusion that as an institution the UNO really does not possess the African cultural intelligence and capacity to address the tribal mentality combined with disingenuous colonial enterprises to even appreciate much less resolve African conflicts. This is something for the AU to consider as it transforms itself into an organization that takes a more direct, pre-emptive and assertive role in conflict management and governance issues of its member states.
Background to the Conflict in Ivory Coast
The background of the conflict in the Ivory Coast is primarily ethnic, regional and cultural. The southern elite have had a long partnership with the French Colonial authorities and have come to believe that it is there inalienable right to govern the entire Ivory Coast. The French Colonial authorities nurtured and encouraged this dynamic as it suited their commercial enterprises and projects for many years before and since Ivorian independence in 1960.
In fact to the Ivorian Southerner, the Ivorian colonial construct consists mainly of--if not only, of the Southern ethno-geographical groups. To them the Northern ethnic groups are not pure Ivoirians’ but migrant workers from Burkina Faso, Mali and elsewhere.
This cozy relationship between the French and the Southern Ivorian began to unravel after the death of President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, a southerner who presided over a one-Party state and who nurtured the Franco-Southern Ivorian partnership.
So the French have been a guarantor and benefactor of the alienation of the North by the South for years but have now realized that their interests are in jeopardy under President Laurent Gbagbo’s and his southern establishment. It is this falling out between the French and the Southerner which informs this peculiar African conflict.
The French and the Northern regions wish to now establish a new partnership which displaces the Southerner, which now fears their own alienation in this colonial construct. Thus when I hear African leaders parroting the US State Department and French Foreign Minister that they have offered President Gbagbo safe passage into exile, it betrays the naivety of these mindless surrogates of the peculiar Ivorian dynamics.
I wonder if they are also going to extend this offer of safe exile to all the millions of Ivoirians in the south as well. These are the southern elites comprising technocrats, the military and the educated class. What about the millions of ordinary Gbagbos who are determined to never be ruled by a Northerner and also who themselves fear reprisals after years of alienation against the North.
To manage this conflict requires recognition that the disunity and hatred between the North and South in the Ivory Coast is much deeper than one or a few individuals. Characterizing this conflict as merely about the refusal of just another African Head of State to step down after an electoral defeat is not only factually incorrect but also very shallow. What is unequivocally clear is that the pre-election benchmarks set out under the UN Security Council Resolution mandating that the conduct of the UNOCI as well as the African Union-brokered Ouagadougou Peace Accord were not achieved. Secondly, it was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Why? Because the African Union should have insisted that the French military completely leave Ivory Coast and certainly not join as a signatory to those agreements.
The United Nations should never have allowed French soldiers or operatives in the Ivorian peace building process, because the North-South divide is a French creation that has metamorphosized over the years into an ethnic and cultural conflict of magnanimous proportions.
The very presence of the French military and its large expatriate population only serve to undermine the healing and reconciliation envisaged under those agreements. This North-South conflict existed long before the Nov. 28th election and will continue after a President Gbagbo or a President Oauttara government if genuine, but non-meddling support is not given by non-interested international friends of the Ivory Coast.
Also this relatively new strategy of using African surrogate States or institutions to achieve foreign objectives against another African State is a development that will only divide the African Union. What is required is a mutual and genuine recognition particularly by the Southern Ivorian establishment that the people of the North are equally part of the Ivorian multiethnic construct and should share in governance.
With this in mind a new constitution is required with a new impetus to embrace each other. The opportunity for a new African statesmanship first between these two electoral candidates exists for them to abandon their claim to the Presidency and work together in a transitional arrangement.
They should meet and isolate themselves in a retreat that will draft a new constitution particularly with electoral provisions that provide guarantees to disadvantaged ethnic communities. The agenda of this process must be owned and driven by themselves after wide national consultation. It will focus on building faith and trust between the parties.
All international non Ivorian assistance must come through an African Union select group of African Eminent Persons that has at its disposal all the facilities, resources and with its own dispute resolution mechanism. Thus, to achieve reconciliation it is my contention that the UN should divest itself permanently of anymore such misadventures and instead help to capacitate the African Union and other sub regional bodies that will have a better chance of making sense of our realities. And since the AU as an institution lacks financial muscle then perhaps the UN should outsource conflict resolutions to the AU with all the necessary financial support but without political interference.
This conflict requires home-grown models and strategies not the same old tried and failed models. The Gacaca Model of conflict resolution has worked well in Rwanda and there are other culturally specific models around the Continent that needs to be invested in. The missing element is the absence of independent African policy researchers and thinkers to draw out the peculiar African solutions to such crises.
Violent Confrontation and economic isolation are not the solution
The Bretton Woods institutions have already announced that they will not be doing business with the Laurent Gbagbo’s government. That is not surprising. Even the African Development Bank and the West African Monetary Union are under European pressure from behind the scenes to economically suffocate the government’s ability to operate and function. I don’t blame President-elect Ouattara for smiling and saying that he will not meet and discuss with President Gbagbo for a peaceful settlement.
Why should he when the behind the scenes Nicolas Sarkozy government-led international community has handed him all the cards? For all this support I wonder what lucrative no-bid contracts are being promised behind the curtain in newly offshore oil blocks and agricultural concessions. There is nothing for free. There must be some compensation for all this international support however subtle and discreet. Perhaps you may call it cynical but I say it is plausible reality.
I submit that none of this will bring lasting peace and development to the Ivorian people. I honestly don’t know who won the November 28th Election. But what I can say is that serious allegations of widespread fraud, violence and intimidation occurred in the North and the Independent Electoral Commission must be made to give an account on those allegations.
I would very much like to see the details of the Report that was submitted by the initial African Union Special Envoy President Thabo Mbeki on the situation in Ivory Coast. Why was he suddenly replaced by Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who had already made his emotional outburst when he told the media that President Gbagbo should be gotten rid of by military force? Nevertheless, it is still my hope his presence will help Mr. Ouatarra move into a transitional arrangement.
I credit him for getting Candidate Ouatarra to accept the principle of an inclusive Cabinet, albeit a 75-25 percent Ouatarra-Gbagbo ratio. That is a start but not enough to reach a more balanced and negotiated settlement. I blame the French government and certain powerful individuals carrying the label of the United Nations for drowning-out the authentic African voices of reason and measured diplomacy.
They are the ones behind Candidate Ouatarra’s hardened position of stoking and escalating this crisis towards military confrontation. Some of these operatives from behind were the very ones who masterminded this crisis by illegally certifying the electoral process to be free and fair when in fact there is no verifiable basis, either in fact or in law to have done so.
The UN Representative never even read the judgment of the Constitutional Council to at least establish if there was any truth to those allegations. Why should those allegations deemed credible by a Supreme Court be disregarded? Did the UN mandate in any way suspend the authority of the Supreme Court under the Constitution of the Ivory Coast as the highest dispute resolution branch of government? Furthermore, if the UN Special Representative was not satisfied with the integrity of the membership of the Constitutional Council then he should have raised the alarm and call for a re-constituted body as a prerequisite to the election as it has been their mandate to encourage a free and fair election.
Perhaps there were also allegations of fraud in the South or elsewhere that candidate Ouatarra wanted to have investigated and those should form part of the investigation as well. But to simply ignore all the complaints and state that even if candidate Gbagbo’s allegations are true that it would still put candidate Ouatarra ahead is a contempt for due process of law and has put the prestige and office of the UN in legal jeopardy. I don’t say that it was intentional but that is the effect.
That extra-judicial determination by the UN Special Representative is a judgment only to be made by a Court after consideration of the evidence. I confess that I have not read the judgment and cannot render an opinion about it. My only argument is that the judgment should have at least been read and considered before the certification of the elections took place.
The problem for the South Korean UN Special Representative and his principal, Ban Ki Moon is that they have to save face for themselves and for their Country and may lack the courage to acknowledge the error and take remedial steps to reverse the certification. This would entail the launch of an independent investigation where evidence is collected and presented to the Constitutional Court with the opportunity given both sides to present their case for reconsideration under the watchful eyes of a more broad-based international community.
There is also the ECOWAS Community Court in Abuja as well as the African Human Rights Court in Banjul Gambia –all of which are invested with jurisdiction. This would also require President Gbagbo to withdraw his claim to the Presidency and submit himself to the process for an internationally-backed independent investigation as well as that of Candidate Ouatarra.
I know this maybe unlikely but the process needs transparency, accountability, and fairness under law. That is what either side would lack if either men storm their way into the Presidency without legal sanctification. Instead of constant political threats and clandestine military maneuvers, it is the legal avenue that this conflict is missing.
Let’s build and not subvert African Institutions!
Notwithstanding the current outdated structure of the UN, the promise of this institution is still a cause for hope for millions of progressive peoples who yearn to be truly free from neocolonial bondage. The problem is that the international community is represented by a United Nations that has been appropriated by a small group of countries.
So the UN is still a work in progress but we in Africa and in this region must wake up and not look to the UN as a panacea or the only road to prosperity and democratic electoral governance. The UN cannot come to do for us that which we are more than capable of doing for ourselves. Yes, we often fail but Africa is free and we must keep trying, learning and by dam, fake it until we do it right, even when times get difficult; when we are unsure of our way; when the enemy brings the bribe, no matter how long it takes.
The leadership of AU and ECOWAS should have predicted this conflict; raised the alarm and take steps to avert it. The first act of leadership is to take responsibility. They have people on the ground in Ivory Coast and they should have seen it coming.
The problem with many of our leaders is that they casually turn the fate of our people over into the hands of well-meaning strangers to take ownership but who lack understanding of Africa’s realities.
Let me hasten to say that the UN has done some good work in Liberia as a facilitator of peace but there are other places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo where a conflict exist with deep historical and international dimensions but where the UN is nothing but a self-perpetuating reinforcement devise of the very problem it came to relieve.
One thing is clear is that the UN should never be used to fill the void of indigenous leadership created when there is an African conflict. Instead, authentic regional institutions should do that with the temporary financial and logistical facilitation of the UN and other well meaning multilateral institutions. So let us be clear of the fact that the United Nations Organization was not created with Africa in mind.
It is not the forum to resolve any conflict in Africa. As an organization it cannot bring peace to conflicts that its very core founders mischievously constructed.
As an example the Kenyan post election crisis and violence in December 2007 did not lead to UN-sponsored military intervention where hundreds of lives were lost and millions of dollars of property damage went up in flames.
Yet still both the incumbent President and the Opposition leader in that Country came together and ended the violence, formed a Grand Coalition government that is exemplary for countries around Africa to emulate. It is still a work in progress. It is under the leadership of this very government that the World Bank is projecting between 5-7 percent growth rates in 2011.
It is not perfect but this transition government has since conducted a national constitutional referendum and passed a new and progressive Constitution into law, and established a firm foundation for addressing corruption and impunity on a scale never seen before in Kenya.
That crisis was averted by a Non-UN group of African Eminent Persons including Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, Graca Michel-Mandela and other regional leaders. Despite the snickering, here is a good example of African solutions for African problems. It is an experience for sober reflection by all Africans of good will and well-meaning international friends. It could have turned out much worst and for that we should be proud.
Yes, it is true that the UN was invited by the Ivorian Government to broker peace between Government forces and the Northern Rebels under the Ouagadougou Peace Agreement in March 2007. However that Agreement did not suspend the Constitution of Ivory Coast. The sovereignty of the Ivorian nation remained and still does. I am not aware on any legal basis for any assertion about Ivory Coast losing its sovereignty.
Everyone is familiar with the statement in Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter which states that nothing in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction, except where there are enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
The mandate of UNOCI under Security Council resolution 1765 is for the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Côte d’Ivoire “to certify that all stages of the electoral process provide all the necessary guarantees for the holding of open, free, fair and transparent presidential and legislative elections in accordance with international standards…” Isn’t this a periodic and procedural process that demands certification at various stages of the electoral processes as opposed to a mere end-of-voting and counting certification event? Is the UNOCI authorized to make military threats or to mobilize support for military intervention and unbridled interference in the domestic domain of a state?
Furthermore, article 2 (4) states that all UN members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Another outstanding question left to be determined is whether the UN Special Representative Mr. Y.J Choi was in any position to properly certify that all stages of the Ivorian November 28th electoral process was free and fair and whether he can verifiably guarantee that they were conducted in accordance with international standards. Can the UN Special Representative tell us why he negligently certified provisional results which pursuant to the Ivorian Constitution must first be validated by the Constitutional Council?
The United Nations Secretary General owes an explanation to the world and Africa in particular on these questions. A careful perusal of the wording of Security Council Resolution 1765 and the Ouagadougou Peace Accords stipulate that a series of measures were to precede the holding of national elections in order to meet the required international standards.
These documents stipulate specific measures including--- the creation of a new Transitional Government; organizing free and fair presidential elections; merging the Forces Nouvelles and the National Defense and Security forces through the establishment of an integrated command centre; dismantling the militias, disarming ex-combatants and enrolling them in civil services programs and replacing the so-called zone of confidence separating north and south with a green line to be monitored by UNOCI.
All this was to be done in coordination between the Government, Rebels, UNOCI and the French Military Forces in the Country. From the very outset the AU and ECOWAS should have raise the alarm that the French military be excluded from these agreements. Suffice it to say that there are too many military interests in the mix to achieve the desired outcomes. I really don’t know what anyone can say to justify the presence of French military in an independent Ivory Coast. Can you see the conflict of interest?
Notwithstanding all the threats of military intervention by an ECOWAS/AU force, the Security Council after a number of meetings has stopped short of authorizing such a force. The UNSC is divided because Russia and China are unwilling to join their hawkish colleagues among the five permanent members and would veto any such enterprise.
Also South Africa as a rotating member has also refrained from supporting the so-called military option and has also voiced concern about certain electoral discrepancies. What is even clearer is that the constant threat of military force is not legitimate under international law and has not had any effect on the de facto President of Ivory Coast and has therefore failed as an effective instrument of negotiation.
Meanwhile these threats only terrorize the innocent people of the region, escalating a humanitarian disaster of internally displaced persons, further sending the regional macro-economic conditions downwards and reinforcing a pretext for military adventurism. The people of the region do not deserve this kind of dishonest leadership.
Mr. Prime Minister/AU Special Envoy Odinga there must be no war in Ivory Coast. Let us agree that no elected President or election is worth the life of one more African child. We must confront injustice but by every other means than through violence, whether state violence, international-sponsored violence or rebellion.
It didn’t work in Kenya’s post election crisis and should not be advocated elsewhere in Africa. You are personally aware of what happens when violence is turned on civilians and the legal international consequences as some of your closest political allies are currently facing the International Criminal Court.
It is equally immoral to stir up the sentiments of the people and send them as human shields to storm buildings manned by soldiers who are only trained to resolve disputes with a fire arm.
These militaries of Africa are trained to kill people and destroy property. There were not instituted to respect human rights and tolerance. Their guns are not aimed at outside aggressors but at their very own people. These are not engineers building roads and dams for development.
It an institution of destruction whether people or property. The recent suffering of Kenya, Liberia and Sierra Leone has enough lessons for our Ivorian neighbors to learn. The peoples of the region including Liberia do not want the Ivoirians to suffer the wanton destruction of lives, property and national infrastructure that we experienced.
The people of Liberia do not want their territory to be used to bring in weapons to wage war against the people of Ivory Coast on either side of the divide. In its wisdom the Ghanaian government has already stated that it will not be contributing any forces to any impending ECOWAS military enterprise. Let there be no more threat of violent confrontation because this issue can only be addressed peacefully.
There is no alternative to peace. Civil war is not an option and anyone calling for that does not have the interest of the people in their hearts. There is enough good will on this continent to resolve disputes and to bring our lost brothers and sisters back into the fold at the rendeveau of victory.
You cannot isolate approximately half of your population, send them into exile and achieve the development goals of the nation. We need every intellectual capital on board, to debate, discuss, and move the national and regional development agenda forward. Let us move in that direction to a place not to settle old scores and tribal rivalry but where post election development can take place dealing with some of the major national issues such as constitutional reform, electoral reform, land reform, human rights, regional integration etc.
This conflict must not be viewed as an opportunity for transferred aggression from Kenya’s post election crisis of 2007. Only the legacy of Kenya’s spirit of reconciliation should be carried from Kenya and East Africa to Ivory Coast and West Africa and I trust that you are familiarizing yourself personally with all the facts and issues of the peculiar nature of this crisis and at the end you would have done your best to build lasting ties between the two regions of the Continent.
Let’s think long-term and take Ownership of our Governance
Electoral governance is not and has never been a panacea for peace and development in a heterogeneous Africa. It’s simply the creation of a new form of polarization that exacerbates ethnic tensions in the African context. Perhaps it is the best known internationally-accepted way but this formula has its limitations. It has never undone the manipulated ethnic conflicts that were sown many years ago across Africa for the commercial interest of Europe.
Every former direct colonial state in Africa still has its portion of these internal conflicts which continue to be the major cause of national strife, poverty and underdevelopment. These conflicts are sharply reflected every four or five years or whenever elections are due in African states. The mismanagement and mal-governance of these ethnic diversities have been the cause of so much conflict on the continent that a way finally needs to be found to transform these false political dichotomies with a tailor-managed and shared consensus-building and decision-making system.
This system will finally provide the basis for the extraction of the huge reservoir of benefits within this multiplicity of diversities. Its aim will be to provide greater participatory governance and away from tribal electoral governance. Then we can transform our diversity into a source of peace, prosperity and unity under a post election political coalition for development.
That is the challenge of all of us and in particular the AU which is the only institution that was created to grapple with such an issue. Electoral governance as practiced in the West does not work at all or well in the African heterogeneous environments and so we must be bold enough to offer new solutions of governance that recognizes this challenge. It must be acknowledged that the Ivorian post election crisis can and will happen more and more in all of the loosely put together African states including populous countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, DRC, and others.
We cannot take the Sudan route of creating more and more land-locked independent states in Africa as the solution. So an informed strategy needs to be put in place after a continent-wide dialogue that will consider various options towards the long journey of building African bridges of unity and common prosperity. What is taking place in the Ivory Coast is the unraveling of the patriotic one-party state comprising mainly of the Southern ethnic groups held together by the late strong-man President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, using French money and military.
As many of these post colonial leaders are dying out and many of the family dynasties are under threat by popular demand for greater participatory governance, a deep void is created which exposes the absence of credible institutions of governance. So let’s not kid ourselves about the falling apart of Ivory Coast because it is inevitable to occur in other parts of Africa as well.
The African Union must step up, fill the void and become more involved in the governance policy direction even if it is to conduct elections itself in some of these states until credible institutions can be established. To do nothing is to allow another African surrogate government to be hatched between Washington and Europe to fill that void for another generation or two.
Steps towards an African Solution in Ivory Coast
A negotiated settlement is being made more difficult by a South Korean UN Representative that is more concerned with saving face than saving an environment conducive for both parties to be brought to the table to heal the Ivorian national divide. As I stated before this national divide is far more complex than just between a former President Laurent Gbagbo and President-elect Allassan Ouatarra, if you like.
Ivory Coast has been a sweet chocolate in the mouth of France for far too long and America wants a piece of the chocolate as well. I know the French are concerned about the break-down of their French African establishment and the very real prospect of the Ivory Coast becoming an encouragement to other satellites in the French orbit. So it will not be easy and demands dedicated African transformative leadership and much courage.
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon should immediately withdraw this naïve Special Representative and some in his entourage like the Frenchman Allain Le Roy, and replace them with a fresh UN team of honest brokers to review the situation on the ground.
The UN should consider President Thabo Mbeki or President Paul Kagame or President Jerry Rawlings to conduct a thorough investigation and report back on this impasse that threatens the entire West African sub-region. The UN would then demonstrate with these initial steps that it is seeking to establish a credible and peaceful atmosphere. In the meantime ECOWAS should immediately stop all movement towards military confrontation and find more productive use of its limited resources such as getting proper legal advice.
What we now have in the Ivory Coast is a situation that requires the African Union to move in with Solomonic wisdom and eclipse the United Nations as a facilitator of peace in that important African state that is trying to find its own way after years of French hegemony. The main issue is not who won and who lost the November Presidential elections. That is a false dichotomy that only exacerbates the ethnic and regional divergences in the Country.
The issue is that the important processes which were to lead up towards electoral governance have failed to unite the various African communities of the Ivorian State at this time. Concentration must now be placed on governance by consensus, reconciliation and ethnic harmony.
Even if the UNO manages to somehow swear in a President-elect Allasanne Ouatarra, that will not bring unity but only governance by force for at least half of the population. The United Nations, AU or ECOWAS, France, the EU or the United States cannot force or dictate to the millions of Ivoirians of approximately half the voting population of people to allow themselves to be governed by someone whom they consider alien to them. It is the same for President Gbagbo as has been demonstrated over the last ten years by the Rebels in the North. Neither of them can independently have an effective government over this divided country.
What is needed now is a cooling-off period in which both sides step-aside and allows a vacant Presidency but where the two major political parties position themselves and appoint two Prime Ministers and a joint cabinet in a transitional government.
The constitution would have to be either suspended or amended to enable this eventuality. This period will serve the purpose of major national reforms such as a new constitution, electoral reforms, land reforms, national reconciliation, and healing. At the end of this period both these men being advanced in years must agree not to offer themselves again but to work towards national political unification and support of younger Ivoirians to fill the void of national leadership.
I challenge both Mr. Gbagbo and Mr. Ouatarra to pick up their android blackberry and start the real process of trust-building.
Conclusion and Glimmers of Hope
The rapid escalation of the crisis by the quick mobilization of diplomatic isolation, economic strangulation, threats of military intervention and flagrant media hyperbole all at once directed against the Ivorian Government is an extremely worrying development because it is completely inconsistent with the established African norms and practices of international relations.
Neither the African Union nor ECOWAS has ever demonstrated the cow-boy mentality when addressing African conflicts. We must not underrate the value of our own best practice of “Quiet-Diplomacy” that has worked in many other crises around Africa. The conflict and crises that precipitated the Nigerian-led ECOMOG intervention into Liberia and Sierra Leone are not comparable to this Ivorian conflict and is in need of African policy experts to help our leaders navigate it.
It is truly sad to see African leader’s cow-tow to external forces to beat the war drum after the catastrophic humanitarian disaster that was caused by ECOMOG to the peoples of Liberia, Sierra Leone and the entire sub-region. Meanwhile what is emerging is a partition of the views of African states into three distinct groups: those adamantly against the use of military intervention force, such as South Africa, Angola, Libya, Togo, Equatorial Guinea, Cape Verde, and Ghana, on one side; and then there are those that insist that military option is part of the solution such as Bukina Faso, Mali, Senegal, and Botswana, and then the others that have left their positions deliberately unknown.
Indeed, African states are not a monolith but the AU Secretariat must be careful not to open itself to Western undue influence as this conflict can do major harm to the African Union.
I am encouraged particularly by the position taken by the Angolan and Ghanaian governments which are signs of courage and which other African states should emulate in their handling of this crisis. The Government of Angola has broken ranks with some of their hawkish peers in the African Union and repudiated the threats of war as a means to address this crisis.
The Angolan Government has been lobbying other African states against this mindless turn of events. Meanwhile the Government of Ghana which shares a border with the Ivory Coast has stated that they will not be sending troops to aid any military intervention force in the Ivory Coast. It is important to note that no other country in West Africa or indeed Africa has the democratic credentials that Ghana has maintained.
So it is a significant sign coupled with the hope that major parts of the Ghanaian political establishment can begin to speak out about the direction that ECOWAS seem to be moving.
In this regard, former President Jerry Rawlings has condemned the flagrant carelessness of the rhetoric of some regional and international leaders in the handling of the Ivorian crisis.
In a recent statement he has stated:
“The disputed results clearly indicate that the Ivory Coast is sharply divided on ethnic lines, a fact which should be concerned stakeholders such as ECOWAS, the AU and the UN at the time, they exploring options to resolve the impasse. The two men at the center of the conflict have indicated their willingness to accept a recount or re-verification of results by neutral observers.
Is there a hidden reason for not wanting to accept the offer made by both parties? It is also important that we do not rush into any kind of intervention force. This does not guarantee a final resolution of the crisis and may actually exacerbate an already volatile situation that could result in a complete civil war with disastrous effects on the populations of entire sub-region.
"Attempts to gather support for military intervention were unfounded and instead expose the hypocrisy of the UN, ECOWAS and the AU. The most outrageous election results took place without intervention. How can we justify an intervention in this case, when the results are so tight and divided along ethnic lines?
Let us explore all options available to peace rather than military intervention, which cannot reach a peaceful political transition in Côte d'Ivoire. The situation is certainly an embarrassment to Africa, but equally disturbing is the fact that international media have chosen to overlook many things.”
Also the official position of the French Government on the Ivorian situation is not shared by all French parliamentarians. Some elected officials, like Henri Emmanuelli, Francois Loncle or former minister Hubert Vedrine, have begun to question Mr Sarkozy government’s handling of the Ivorian election crisis, raising issues about the possible fall-out in French West Africa and the international image of France.
Didier Julia, UMP deputy from Seine-et-Marne and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has conducted a survey of his colleagues of whom 30 to 40% of them began to change lines. Questions to Minister of Foreign Affairs such as what is the involvement of France doing interfering in the Ivory Coast domestic political problems?
Why did the French government take these retaliatory measures against President Gbagbo and his entourage such as the withdrawal of their visas and passports, while this may endanger the 15,000 French who are in Ivory Coast? And why is the French supporting the American anti-Gbagbo position simply because they could not conquer the lucrative cacao trade in Ivory Coast and that France was not a surrogate of America in world politics and whether or not French soldiers would open fire on Ivoirians’ in a problem of internal politics which would be an abominable image for France.
Thus as events unfold we see that the matter is not as simple as the UNOCI and the international media would like Africans to believe. So the international media needs to take stock of the manner in which they proceed to report these issues and not allow there broadcasts to be appropriated at the expense of the truth.
Here is an opportunity for the African media to distinguish itself by asking probing questions that the international media are unwilling to ask. African media needs to tune in to the voices of many within the wider African civil society as well as those from a broader internationally represented perspective so that the international community can be truly reflected.
This must not be another African crisis dominated by the pecuniary interest and opinions of Western Europe and the United States of America. With South Africa returning as a non permanent member of the UN Security Council, I am also hopeful that many of these concerns can be raised and the authentic voices of Africa can finally come through.
http://news.myjoyonline.com/features/201101/59909.asp
“The disputed results clearly indicate that the Ivory Coast is sharply divided on ethnic lines, a fact which should be concerned stakeholders such as ECOWAS, the AU and the UN at the time, they exploring options to resolve the impasse. The two men at the center of the conflict have indicated their willingness to accept a recount or re-verification of results by neutral observers.
Is there a hidden reason for not wanting to accept the offer made by both parties? It is also important that we do not rush into any kind of intervention force. This does not guarantee a final resolution of the crisis and may actually exacerbate an already volatile situation that could result in a complete civil war with disastrous effects on the populations of entire sub-region.
"Attempts to gather support for military intervention were unfounded and instead expose the hypocrisy of the UN, ECOWAS and the AU. The most outrageous election results took place without intervention. How can we justify an intervention in this case, when the results are so tight and divided along ethnic lines?
Let us explore all options available to peace rather than military intervention, which cannot reach a peaceful political transition in Côte d'Ivoire. The situation is certainly an embarrassment to Africa, but equally disturbing is the fact that international media have chosen to overlook many things.”
Also the official position of the French Government on the Ivorian situation is not shared by all French parliamentarians. Some elected officials, like Henri Emmanuelli, Francois Loncle or former minister Hubert Vedrine, have begun to question Mr Sarkozy government’s handling of the Ivorian election crisis, raising issues about the possible fall-out in French West Africa and the international image of France.
Didier Julia, UMP deputy from Seine-et-Marne and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has conducted a survey of his colleagues of whom 30 to 40% of them began to change lines. Questions to Minister of Foreign Affairs such as what is the involvement of France doing interfering in the Ivory Coast domestic political problems?
Why did the French government take these retaliatory measures against President Gbagbo and his entourage such as the withdrawal of their visas and passports, while this may endanger the 15,000 French who are in Ivory Coast? And why is the French supporting the American anti-Gbagbo position simply because they could not conquer the lucrative cacao trade in Ivory Coast and that France was not a surrogate of America in world politics and whether or not French soldiers would open fire on Ivoirians’ in a problem of internal politics which would be an abominable image for France.
Thus as events unfold we see that the matter is not as simple as the UNOCI and the international media would like Africans to believe. So the international media needs to take stock of the manner in which they proceed to report these issues and not allow there broadcasts to be appropriated at the expense of the truth.
Here is an opportunity for the African media to distinguish itself by asking probing questions that the international media are unwilling to ask. African media needs to tune in to the voices of many within the wider African civil society as well as those from a broader internationally represented perspective so that the international community can be truly reflected.
This must not be another African crisis dominated by the pecuniary interest and opinions of Western Europe and the United States of America. With South Africa returning as a non permanent member of the UN Security Council, I am also hopeful that many of these concerns can be raised and the authentic voices of Africa can finally come through.
http://news.myjoyonline.com/features/201101/59909.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment