webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Mon Jan 24 2011 - 23:44:44 EST
*Feature*: The roots of the Ivorian crisis
*
http://news.myjoyonline.com/features/201101/59909.asp*
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. 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.
*By Nkrumah M. Mulmi Esq.
Nairobi, Kenya*
Story from Myjoyonline.Com News:
http://news.myjoyonline.com/features/201101/59909.asp
Published: 1/25/2011
© Myjoyonline.com
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----