One of the arguments made for NATO’s staying out of Libya is the “Well, what about Ivory Coast?” argument. This implies that nobody’s doing anything to stop the bloodshed and strife that has followed Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to honor the results of the election that voted him out of power. Except that there already is outside intervention in Ivory Coast, and has been for some time. From http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unoci/ –
Côte d’Ivoire has been plunged into turmoil following incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to concede defeat after losing the 28 November second round of election to his opponent, former Prime Minister Alassane Ouattara.
Facilitating the implementation of the 2003 peace agreement by the Ivorian parties
Having determined that the situation in Côte d’Ivoire continued to pose a threat to international peace and security in the region and acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council, by its resolution 1528 (2004)
of 27 February 2004, decided to establish the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) as from 4 April 2004. UNOCI replaced the United Nations Mission in Côte d’Ivoire (MINUCI), a political mission set up by the Council in May 2003 with a mandate to facilitate the implementation by the Ivorian parties of the peace agreement signed by them in January 2003.
In other words, UN peacekeepers are already in Ivory Coast, and have been since 2006, when they came to help set up the free elections Gbagbo was trying to avoid. He’d tried to order them out of the country in December, after he lost the election, and when they refused to leave, he declared them to be on the side of the “rebels” (aka: the people who won the election) and thus fair game for his troops, as most recently shown by this attack on a UN helicopter, even though the UN is officially neutral in the conflict and is trying to minimize bloodshed.
The UN presence is very likely why Gbagbo has been steadily losing his grip on the country, and why the winners of the election are likely to be able to claim in fact what they won at the ballot box four months ago.
UPDATE: There are good reasons for the UN’s neutrality. There is concern that his opponent, Alassane Ouattra, may have been involved in massacres committed by forces under his command:
But the killings could call into question how much control Mr. Ouattara has over his forces and, if further investigation proved their involvement, tarnish his reputation overseas, where he is perceived to hold the high moral ground in the standoff with Mr. Gbagbo.
UPDATE:As it turns out, a “no-fly zone” would be pointless as neither side has an air force to speak of anyway; the government has ninety planes, but only six to eight of those might still be operational. (Even if it weren’t pointless, it would require carrier-based support as the closest NATO bases are a few thousand miles away. By contrast, the Mediterranean has NATO bases throughout; planes from Sicily can be at Libya in thirty minutes’ time.)
Also, the idea that we’re not interested because Ivory Coast doesn’t have oil? Oh yes, it does. In fact, it’s arguing with Ghana over who owns some particularly choice offshore oil fields. (Oh, and the Sudan has oil too, which the Chinese are busily developing even as they turn a blind eye, same as does the West to Darfur; that’s why their digs at the West on Libya are a touch hypocritical.)



7 Comments

Good discussion on this yesterday at democracynow:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/1/ivory_coast_crisis_intensifies_as_anti
The question of whether Ouattara has control of forces deemed loyal to him is a good one. It’s been reported that rebels in the north, that previous to last year’s elections were in conflict with Ouattara and his forces, decided in the last couple weeks to join him in ousting Gbagbo. Question is, do they take orders from him going forward if indeed they succeed in removing Gbagbo as it seems likely today they will.
Have you heard if the UN there have received funds they were seeking to pay for their forces there? They were concerned a couple weeks ago they wouldn’t have enough to make it. This is especially important if they are in fact having an effect in reducing bloodshed at all and at reporting facts all over the country.
Here is a comment I left on a Ivory Coast thread from a few days ago. The thread slipped away quickly so I’ll repeat it here:
Over 1000 dead are reported in Duekoue. This is in the southern (Gbagbo) part of the country but close to the northern (Ouattara) part. Ouattara forces took the town. There are 10,000 people seeking refuge at a Catholic church which inclines me to believe the victims are Gbagbo supporters. Add to that that since the the “international community” has gotten behind Ouattara, he has clearly taken the most aggressive posture. And add again that the fact that the media is starting to spin this as ethnic violence (which it partially is) and as perhaps the work of mercenaries (which it perhaps is), and we are inclined to the preliminary conclusion that the largest massacre by far was done by Ouattara forces. If this line of thought is correct, then I would draw the further conclusion that the violence was in no small part due to the crude and ignorant and self-serving way in which Sarkozy and Obama handled this situation. Furthermore, the scale of the massacre greatly has dramatically increased the chance of future violence next week and over the years to come. The two men had a very long history of rivalry and the election was not nearly as clear cut as the media would have one believe. If West Africa sees a marked increase in violence, then this will be the key moment and the colonial(in the worst sense of the term) desire of Sarkozy and Obama to install their IMF man in Abdijan will have been the driving force.
I would further add, that the news coverage, when it isn’t giving it the pro-Sarkozy spin, is about 90% irresponsible garbage. Reporters who know nothing about the conflict suggest narratives that have nothing to do with the facts. Calling Gbagbo a “strongman” for example. Or comparing what is going on to what has happened elsewhere in Africa. Then there is the skeptical tone of the newscasters who don’t have a fucking clue what they are talking about but figure some kind of blanket skepticism proves how discerning they are like the Al-jazeera knucklehead impatiently asking “this has gone on for four months now; why has this gone on so long?” Belgium can go without a government for 10 months but if the same thing happens in Africa, then Sarkozy and Obama have to stupidly force matters and ride roughshod over the Constitutional provisions of Cote d’Ivoire.
Just imagine if the “international community” had declared Gore the winner in 2000. What would Americans do??
The fact is that this did not begin as an all out ethnic conflict. It began as an election with some implicit ethnic dimensions.
The ratcheting up of the conflict into an ethnic one is above all do to the horrifying ignorance and impatience of Sarkozy and Obama.
Short answer – no oil, no American corporate interest, no political constituency in FL, NY, OH, etc.
Actually, Ivory Coast has gobs of oil, and has for decades. They’re fighting right now with Ghana over some offshore deposits.
Emphasis added.
http://www.mbendi.com/indy/oilg/af/ci/p0005.htm