News & Analysis
Ivory Coast Resolution Turns Into Neo-Colonialism
Gbagbo arrest sends 'strong signal' to dictators ... The capture of Ivory Coast strongman Laurent Gbagbo sends a strong signal to dictators that they cannot ignore the will of their people, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (left) said Monday. Clinton told reporters his arrest "sends a strong signal to dictators" in the region and beyond that they "may not disregard" the voice of their own people in free and fair elections. – AFP
Dominant Social Theme: Africa is a better place with one less tyrant and such individuals have got to respect the will of the electorate.
Free-Market Analysis: Now that former president Laurent Gbagbo has been captured by his rival Alassane Ouattara, the mainstream media is predicting a return to normalcy for the Ivory Coast. It is no doubt hoped by many in the West that Hillary Clinton's specific warning shall encourage democracy throughout the continent, as there are supposedly some 30 elections to be held in that vast region in the near future. The question emerges however as to whether Gbagbo's removal was done in such a way as to enforce the message that the West and the UN wanted to send or detract from it. This is the issue we examine below.
Start with a summary. The recognized story is that Ouattara – as we've written previously – won the Ivory Coast election but his rival Gbagbo refused to step down. Now some five months later, Ouattara has captured Gbagbo and proposes to put him on trial for what turned into a violent confrontation between the two leaders and their respective armed backers.
It's been a tragedy for Ivorian citizens. Perhaps a million or more have been displaced and thousands killed during the struggle between the two men. What was an election in a somewhat impoverished, tiny country has become world news; its resolution officially been turned into a larger object lesson: Respect the UN and its mandate. And listen to your wiser, Western elders.
Yet there are other interpretations as well. An analysis by CNN, no less, in an article entitled "Civil war may continue despite Gbagbo's arrest," points out there are reasons to wonder whether real peace shall return to the Ivory Coast anytime soon. "Ouattara takes over a deeply divided country," writes CNN's Amar C. Bakshi, "and accusations that his forces committed serious crimes while advancing towards Abidjan will complicate any reconciliation effort."
Bakshi explains that even U.N.-certified results show that 46 percent of the population voted for Gbagbo, and therefore the Ivory Coast, a small nation that produces much of the world's cocoa, is fairly evenly divided over the results. Not only that, but in removing Gbagbo and eventually placing him on trial, the opposition risks creating further divisions. The reports of atrocities cut both ways. Bakshi adds the following:
Human Rights Watch said forces loyal to Ouattara had killed hundreds of civilians, raped over 20 women and girls perceived as belonging to Gbagbo's camp and burned at least 10 villages in western Ivory Coast ... Religious and tribal faultlines in the West mirror the divide between Gbagbo, whose traditional powerbase is in the Christian and animist south, and Ouattara's Muslim, northern-based forces.
"The conflict in Cote d'Ivoire is not simply one between two presidential candidates, but between two entrenched ethno-political factions which won't be ended simply because Gbagbo gives up," said Sebastian Spio-Garbrah, managing director at DaMina Advisors. Bottom line: the world should not take its eye off Ivory Coast just because Gbagbo has been detained.
Even Baskshi's post doesn't explore the full ramifications of what has just taken place. As we've reported previously, what continues to be left out of this story by the mainstream media reporting on it (thousands of articles by now) was that Gbagbo questioned the initial results of the election in a legal manner, or at least one that observed the niceties of Ivory Coast judicial process.
The query was brought before the Ivorian Supreme Court which threw out certain results and declared Gbagbo the winner. It was at this point that the UN stepped in and declared that Ouattara was the winner nonetheless. In doing so, the UN nullified Gbagbo's complaint to the Ivorian Supreme Court and the decision of the Court itself. (Even if the court was corrupt, it would seem that this would have been the place to begin an inquiry.)
Gbagbo's refusal to abide by the UN's decision is what eventually set off the bloodshed. But Gbagbo, a history professor by training who supposedly reads classics in the original Latin and Greek, may have had other more personal reasons to confront Ouattara. The two men have a history going back several decades. They have been political rivals but also they embody, as the CNN article points out, the larger schisms of Ivory Coast society.
Ouattara was not apparently born in the Ivory Coast and constitutionally was barred from running for over a decade. Somehow, eventually, he ran anyway, as the recent election shows. In power previously, as the result of an appointment, he (or his regime) had Gbagbo and his wife arrested and tortured – or so we've read in several news articles. This could explains some of the bad blood between the two men as Gbagbo blames Ouattara directly for his plight and the attacks on his wife.
Having decided that Ouattara had won the election, the UN and the French who initially colonized the Ivory Coast had a fine line to walk. For four months, outside forces negotiated with Gbagbo asking him to step down. But eventually Ouattara had had enough. With the help of French troops and UN forces, he fought back from the hotel where he had taken refuge and managed to gain control of most of the important cities.
Unfortunately, Ouattara's forces including mercenaries left behind a string of murders and rapes that are now being investigated. (Gbago's troops are accused of atrocities as well.) Additionally, these forces had difficulty making the final attack to bring Gbagbo and his family out of the presidential palace where they hiding. Ultimately, it took the combined massed might of both French and UN troops to excavate Gbagbo. The French have claimed that they did not set foot in the presidential palace and that Ouattara's forces handled the final assault.
In summarizing this bizarre incident in a tiny African country, one is left puzzled as to why it ended as it did. Leaving aside the actual politics involved, Gbagbo apparently had a legitimate reason to cling to power. Not only that, but he also had reason to believe that his rival was behind his previous torture and that of his wife's if reports are to be believed. Finally, without the interference of both the French and the UN, Ouattara likely would not have been able to remove him.
Within this context, Hillary Clinton's warning to African leaders to respect the rule of law and abide by elections seems at least a bit tenuous, if not misguided. The French have now twice used the 2005 UN resolution that we have reported on previously – R2P – to bring military force to bear on an African country. Libya is one example and the Ivory Coast is another. But in claiming that military force is warranted to "protect civilians" from slaughter, French leaders and the Anglo-American power elite itself are making specific judgments that are bound to be subjective.
In the case of the Ivory Coast it seems clear that the French and the Western powers-that-be found Ouattara an easier person to deal with than Gbagbo. He is a former employee of both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and his installation as President of the Ivory Coast shall no doubt bring that bleeding country further into the ambit of Western influence. But the way that the resolution was handled shall leave questions and lingering bitterness at least.
Conclusion: Gbagbo's eventual appearance at the Hague probably shall not resolve these issues. It is more likely to be viewed as a show trial. The West apparently wanted to make a point about the legitimacy of African elections and about respecting the UN's judgment. Instead, a point has been made that may have more to do with resurgent neo-colonialism than electoral justice. And that may have a host of further implications that are yet to unfold.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Stan on 04/15/11 05:23 AM
I would like to suggest that the aim of this assault is to establish legitimacy to attack any country that does not toe the line, and a small country like the Ivory Coast is a good starting point. Minimal losses of the so called " defenders of democracy"
 |
Posted by Wayne on 04/12/11 09:43 PM
@Dotti
"As a US citizen, I have a limited awareness of posse commitas (which, unfortunately does not include proper spelling!) and have hoped that it offered some protection against an assault against our liberties. Obviously, in the face of a crash of the USD, it could become "necessary" to retain "order" in the US. ( I have heard that during the meltdown in September of 2008, martial law was under consideration by US political elite. Supposedly, the reason this idea was discarded was because of the large number of firearms privately held.) If the Western Elite applied the same rule of law to the United States that it did to the Ivory Coast, UN forces could be called in."
You are the defense against tyranny! The Founding Fathers made this very clear.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
|
Posted by Wayne on 04/12/11 08:01 PM
@Ol' Grey Ghost
Yep. Hillary is just "trying to save the Global Village" with our resources!
"As for doing good, that is one of the professions which are full. Moreover, I have tried it fairly, and ... am satisfied that it does not agree with my constitution. Henry David Thoreau
Thoreau added, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."
Live Free or Die!
 |
Posted by William3 on 04/12/11 07:55 PM
It's fascinating how the PE persists in developing a pan-African union similar to the EU, while seemingly acknowledging the EU is fraying at the edges and threatening to disintegrate.
These actions in the Cote d' Ivoire and in other African nations not presently supporting the union, are more examples of what DB calls the PE policy of "immovable rigor" in the other article today.
Oh, the trials of building a New World Order. The appalling nature of such blatant arrogance must surely lead to strong international push-back; it does seem to be happening already.
 |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 04/12/11 07:39 PM
@ Dotti
"As a US citizen, I have a limited awareness of posse commitas (which, unfortunately does not include proper spelling!) and have hoped that it offered some protection against an assault against our liberties"
There's a very interesting article on this topic
(Click to view link )
by Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve in which he concludes that Posse Comitatus in no way restricts the use of US Military assets on domestic soil. It's short and in my opinion worth reading.
|
Posted by Wayne on 04/12/11 07:25 PM
@DB
And they gave Hillary's boss, Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace .
Obviously the Nobel Committee is a division of Ingsoc.
Next the Vatican will announce that Hillary Clinton is a Saint.
|
Posted by Wayne on 04/12/11 07:15 PM
@DB
"DB does not endorse not propose or endorse violent acts aimed at anyone including Hillary Clinton. We do wish, however, that she would change her ways which often seem manipulative and repulsive."
Seem manipulative and repulsive?
You get the PC award of 2011 for this.
Hillary makes the Red Queen look like the Good Witch of the West.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We are not putting her on trial. We cannot state for a fact she is personally a murderess or that every last action of hers is based entirely on self-enrichment and personal aggrandizement. We cannot say with absolutely certainty she is a ruthless practitioner of political genocide or that if humankind had one collective neck she would hack it off and smear the terrible pantsuits she wears with its fountaining blood. We cannot say she gets drunk every night and then mounts her plane with staggering steps in the hopes of falling into a dreamless sleep where the cries of her myriad victims - in their tortured hopeless death rages - are blessedly suppressed by her nightcaps.
What do you want us to suggest, Wayne? If we simply present the obvious fact that her actions seem manipulative and repulsive, this is not enough for you? We are suddenly a PC publication? We need to express our bona fides by reserving only the choicest adjectives for this practitioner of apparent evil? We think we a fairly precise statement of what we know. We stand by it.
|
Posted by Bill Granberry on 04/12/11 06:13 PM
To Hillary (the killing machine), may your time on this earth be shorter than a burning match.
Reply from The Daily Bell
DB does not propose or endorse violent acts aimed at anyone including Hillary Clinton. We do wish, however, that she would change her ways which often seem manipulative and repulsive.
|
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 04/12/11 05:51 PM
I believe it was the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (I always stand to be corrected) that wrote words to the effect that the worst form of evil in acts that man does to his fellow man is those that the perpetrator believes is for the recipient's own good.
Hillary ("It Takes A Village," idiot!) and her crowd have never shown any restraint in performing "good deeds" for others because they believe the recipients of their benevolence are too stupid to realize its for their own good.
As father always said, "This is going to hurt me more than it will you." To which I would always respond, "Then don't do it and save us both a lot of pain..."
|
Posted by C. Hanna on 04/12/11 04:12 PM
I see the link did not work in my above post. If you want to view that article just go to wsws. org
the article is titled "France and UN bear responsibility for massacres by Ouattara forces in Ivory Coast"
|
Posted by C. Hanna on 04/12/11 04:10 PM
There is a good article also on this by Ann Talbot at Click to view link (whether you agree with wsws socialist agenda or not, they still have some good articles on international news, wars).
Click to view link
blockquote"Survivors who have escaped over the border into neighbouring Liberia tell of victims being shot or killed with machetes, being disembowelled alive, of women being gang-raped and having their throats cut. More than a million people have fled from their homes."
"Survivors describe deliberate killings directed against ethnic groups that are perceived to be supporters of Gbagbo. Journalists are drawing parallels with Rwanda. The scale of the massacres is as yet smaller, but there too France was implicated in the killings.
The London Times quoted Emmanuel Guer who said, "We were marched to a compound in the town. When we arrived there were 150 people in the hall. At the front they were dragging people out, men and women, in fives, five after five after five. Each time they were taken out we heard gunfire".
Guer went on, "How can I describe what it was like? We were squeezed in like cattle, all you could see in the dark were bulging eyes, women were crying hysterically. People fought to get further back in the queue. They were killing us in a really thought-out way. It was extermination".
"They were shooting them in the back of the head and then dragging the bodies off", he said. "But it was taking a long time for them to do it. Eventually me and six others fought our way out of a back window and escaped over a fence. As we ran towards the highway, the road was lined with the dead. Many of the women had their throats cut"./blockquote
|
Posted by Wayne on 04/12/11 03:49 PM
Gerald Celente has just said what no one else has the courage to say about Clinton, Rice and Powers. Who are the Warmongers? see link
Click to view link
|
Posted by JQ on 04/12/11 12:22 PM
My bad..'much much' should have been much more...sorry.
|
Posted by Henri on 04/12/11 12:20 PM
Historically this has applied to all dictators not friendly to Anglo-Elite Corporations. Friendly dictators are more than well tolerated. They have even been placed in power via the CIA.
|
Posted by Jeannie Queenie on 04/12/11 12:17 PM
How anyone could take this woman seriously is beyond me. Not only does she speak with forked tongue when it comes to violence, women's rights, and free speech, but she has the audacity to veneer her views with so much hypocrisy it sickens one to the core. Take this here which shows just how hypocritical she can be...."Hillary Clinton and her campaign repeatedly highlight her ardent feminism, her lifelong advocacy of workers' rights, her consistent support for unions, and her love of Israel. But those principles go out the window if money is involved."
" When it comes to lining their pockets, the Clintons have a double standard. While Hillary chastises American corporations and employers for lay-offs and opposition to greater union organizing rights, Bill is paid big bucks that go into their JOINT bank accounts to legitimize the anti-Semitic, anti-worker, anti-union, and anti-woman Arab state of the UAE and its emirates of Dubai." You can get the scoop here and much much proving how insincere these people are. While Bill beds broads, she is under satin sheets with the UN. Both are much to chummy with Dubai where human rights are kept on a back burner under an Islamic umbrella.
And yet once again, free speech goes out the window. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive....
"This brutal response to protest by security at Clinton's speech and the fact that she didn't flinch during the incident belies the Obama administration's rhetoric regarding the importance of free speech."
Click to view link
|
Posted by Bluebird on 04/12/11 12:01 PM
If these type of world events were not so tragic, they would be comical. For this woman (?) to stand up and face the press and spout such ridiculous rhetoric with people knowing who the real world dictators are is beyond understanding and belief! I have to wonder if the ones who are doing Satan's bidding believe they will have some lofty position in Hell. Their master will betray them more surely than they are betraying us. I look to that day!
|
Posted by Ken on 04/12/11 11:08 AM
This is a complete travesty. The UN-backed Muslims have massacred Christians and burned them alive. And the UN wants to charge Gbago with war crimes?
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Wait 'til the Hague trial ...
 |
Posted by Dotti on 04/12/11 10:22 AM
I feel like I may be in the role of "kid sister" on this site"others being so much more knowledgeable than I"but I had a few thoughts that I wanted to submit. I do this not to instruct others, but to open myself to comments that would be instructive to me.
I remember Saddam Hussein's sword rattling just before the start of the second Iraq war: He had the audacity to talk of selling oil denominated in currencies other than the USD. I had the feeling that his "punishment" sent a message to other "rogue states", i.e., those that refused to cow tow to the Western Elite, that it was not prudent for them to express such wild ideas.
In reading today's article, I was amazed at the information that was presented. Apparently, the incumbent, Gbagbo, went through appropriate channels in protesting the election results and gained approval from the "law of the land""that is the law of his land"to remain in office. How rude (tongue firmly in cheek!) is it for the WE-led UN to interfere in the internal politics of this small nation!
With an awareness of what is going on in other such nations around the globe, I try to make sense of these things"applying the knowledge that I am gaining about the Western Elite (is this synonymous with the Power Elite?) and how they operate"by putting the various bits of information into perspective. My focus this morning is on two red flags. One is the stench of what you have termed neo-colonialism, leading eventually to one world government. The other is the fear of global acceptance being gained for UN troops being sent into "poorly managed" nations, i.e., those that are resisting the influence of the WE. I do not buy into the idea that world democracy is the goal.
As a US citizen, I have a limited awareness of posse commitas (which, unfortunately does not include proper spelling!) and have hoped that it offered some protection against an assault against our liberties. Obviously, in the face of a crash of the USD, it could become "necessary" to retain "order" in the US. ( I have heard that during the meltdown in September of 2008, martial law was under consideration by US political elite. Supposedly, the reason this idea was discarded was because of the large number of firearms privately held.) If the Western Elite applied the same rule of law to the United States that it did to the Ivory Coast, UN forces could be called in.
I remember as a child (I was born in 1947) being taught about "propaganda" and how insidious it was. Propaganda so distorted communication that one never knew what was true and what was not. Unfortunately I find myself in this position today.
I no longer follow mainstream media information because I have lost trust in the facts/opinions that they present. I can think of no candidate that is electable that I could support"Dr. Ron Paul is a long way from being electable at this point"and I don't know his position on things other than the national debt. I am happy for the Tea Party to be focusing on the debt issue, but cannot offer my wholehearted support. I am seeing more and more of Congressman Paul Ryan and have some hope that he will have a positive influence in the nation, but do not currently see him as electable, either, although I do consider him to be trustworthy.
This post did not develop the way I had expected it to, but rather has meandered a bit. Any comments/corrections to the thinking in my posts are always welcomed. I am a student here, not a teacher. I do not have the time to devote as I would like, but it is a way to keep some bit of my mind from approaching the consistency of jello.
Thanks to DB and all contributors.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thank you for such a thoughtful feedback.
|
Posted by Ken on 04/12/11 10:21 AM
This is a complete travesty. The UN-backed Muslims have massacred Christians and burned them alive. And the UN wants to charge Gbago with war crimes?
Click to view link
|
|
