Oil vs.Ccocoa: Why Ivory Coast Isn’t Like Libya

Barry Neild (CNN)

Violence is escalating in the west African nation of Ivory Coast, where president-elect Alassane Ouattara is trying to oust incumbent Laurent Gbagbo, who refused to leave office after losing an election.

But the international response — limited to a U.N. peacekeeping force already deployed there — has paled by comparison with the U.S. and NATO air strikes targeting forces to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya to prevent attacks on rebels and civilians.

Read an explainer on the situation in Ivory Coast

Nigeria’s foreign minister last month accused the West of hypocrisy in its reactions to the two crises, lashing out at the “contradictions” of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya but failing to to take action to protect civilians in Ivory Coast.

This raises questions about the strategic factors that have influenced the international response to the turmoil facing both countries.

Are there any similarities to the situation in Libya?

Analysts say that there are sharp differences in the problems facing the two countries, with Ivory Coast’s problems evolving over a period of years before coming to a boil in recent weeks compared to Libya’s relatively recent turmoil. But, they say, there are humanitarian concerns over the violence in both countries.

“The two conflicts are very separate, but what is similar is the potential threat to the civilian population,” says Phil Clark, a lecturer in Comparative and International Politics at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, who points out that global intervention in both countries has been focused on protecting hundreds of thousands of people at risk rather than on regime change.

But, says Gilles Yabi, a West Africa analyst with the International Crisis Group, the situation on the ground is vastly different with Gbagbo — who the United Nations and the United States have urged to stand down — having no access to planes and helicopters like those initially deployed by Gadhafi. “We have to be quite prudent about making comparisons,” he said.

What are the differences in international response?

Again there are similarities, with both situations prompting U.N. Security Council resolutions mandating international military intervention, albeit on different scales. In Libya, aircraft were deployed to attack Gadhafi’s air defenses and to protect opposition rebels and civilians from government troops.

In Ivory Coast, extra troops were authorized earlier in the year increasing the size of the U.N. peacekeeping force to 11,000, while France has dispatched 300 military personnel.

Tom Cargill, an Africa expert at the Chatham House think tank, says U.N.-sanctioned air strikes in the Ivory Coast conflict are unlikely. “The situation has moved quickly with the rebels moving into built up areas, so there hasn’t been time to get a mandate from the U.N., but because they are in built-up areas, that kind of intervention probably won’t be something air forces would consider.”

Why are there differences?

Analysts disagree on the reasons. Cargill says the two cannot be compared since Ivory Coast has endured years of crisis and a sustained international engagement aimed at finding a political solution. Others like Clark point to more strategic factors, not least that fact that Western countries feel over-stretched by Libya and are unwilling to commit to the same level of action in Ivory Coast.

“I think Libya has in a sense, acted as a kind of deterrent to collective action,” says Knox Chitiyo, head of Africa program at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.

“In terms of escalation [Ivory Coast] has been unfortunate in terms of timing as the world’s attention has been focused on the Middle East and particularly Libya, so the Ivory Coast, which has been a slow-burning crisis, fell of the radar.”

Is oil a factor?

Yes, say some analysts. As a major oil producer, Libya’s strategic significance is far greater than cocoa- and coffee-producing Ivory Coast, says Clark. Libya’s potential as an incubator for Middle Eastern democracy is also an attention-grabber for Western countries, he says.

“There is significant concern over Libya’s oil and what that would mean for Western strategic interest and there’s a sense that Libya fits into this wider pattern of democratization and the falling of draconian regimes in North Africa and the Middle East.”

Knox adds: “Oil is seen by the West as a more strategic commodity than cocoa if we’re to be quite blunt.”

Is America likely to get involved in the same way it has in Libya?

No, says Knox – partly because as he has shown with Libya, President Barack Obama is unwilling to take a leading role in multinational intervention.

But, he says, this is also because Obama would find it tough to convince a public disillusioned by America’s experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly given Ivory Coast’s perceived lack of strategic significance.

“We’ve seen that Obama has had a real problem selling [intervention] to the U.S. audience,” he said.

Why is France so involved?

As Ivory Coast’s former colonial ruler, France not only has experience of working in the country but also appears to feel a duty to do so, pressing for Security Council action and dispatching troops.

This, says Yabi, creates its own problems as Gbagbo uses the French presence for his own benefit. “Anti-colonial discourse is one of Gbagbo’s political weapons and he is trying to resuscitate that rhetoric against France.”

Knox adds that France’s involvement points to a broader campaign by Paris to inject itself into the international arena, as punctuated by President Nicolas Sarkozy (who is seeking re-election next year) taking a lead role in urging military action in Libya.

Share

Out of Africa: My Encounter With U.S. Politicians At Mid-Term Campaigns

There is no better way to learn about United States politics other than through its politicians. As a Nigerian in Alaska I watched closely the mid-term elections and I happened to have interviewed the three candidates vying for the U.S. Senate race in the State.

Each of the candidates has a different personality and demeanor. Joe Miller, the Republican nominee, is the self-styled constitutional candidate who is out to change Washington D.C and fight what he labeled as the fiscal insanity of the central government. The Democrat Scott McAdams is the one who believes his experience at the local level as someone who has advocated for infrastructure both physical and human before State and national audience prepares him well for the Senate office.

Senator Lisa Murkowski who wants to retain her seat by mounting a write-in campaign- is the establishment candidate who quickly positioned herself as an insurgent but relishes on her vast experience over her opponents. She also canvassed on why she should keep her job because of the usefulness of her seniority in the U.S. Senate for the benefits of Alaskans.
It is striking to me that they have different plans on jobs, economy and Social Security. But despite their disagreements these candidates have abiding faith in American people to get them elected. And the testament of the U.S democracy is that politicians knows that if they fail to deliver on their promises they will be held accountable by voters in next election. This is a sharp contrast in what is occurring in most African countries where democracy is being practiced.

In Nigeria for example, the civil society is so cynical of politics as a result of massive poll rigging, they have given up on the importance of their votes in deciding elections. The last two Presidential elections in the country were marred with fraud and irregularities. Similarly, candidates running for office in Nigeria believe their political fortunes or success are tied to political god-fathers and their party top hierarchy. Recently, a Federal Judge in Nigeria nullified the election of the Ekiti State governor, who has spent three years in office under the banner of President Goodluck Jonathan's ruling PDP because the evidence later suggests that he clinched victory in the election that was actually won by a candidate of the opposition party as a result of election malpractice.

In Angola, President Eduardo Dos Santos Africa's current second-longest serving head of state, after Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi of Libya, was able to convince the country's Parliament to approve a new constitution which abolishes direct presidential elections and could enable President Dos Santos to remain in office until 2022. Under the new constitution, a President can only serve two five-year terms, but he would start afresh in 2012. As a result of those changes, Mr. Santos has managed to weaken the separation of powers. And as the head of the executive branch he has a firm grip on all aspects of the power in his country including the legislative, judiciary, army and police force. If Parliament members in Angola are held accountable by the people this situation would not have arisen. There is slight hope for Africa's Democracy through Ghana's model where we have witnessed successful elections in two different cycles.

There are more things Africa countries could learn from U.S. democracy that could help the continent have a free society and viable economy; the polarization in American politics to some degree may be healthy for separation of powers and democracy because it has led to serious debates on the direction of the country and vital issues that U.S. citizens really care about. To some degree this had yielded results as in President Obama's health care overhaul, financial reforms, auto industry bailout, and economic stimulus, among others. On the other hand, the effect of polarization in U.S. politics, especially the gridlock of government, could deal a serious blow to Africa's fragile democracy because African leaders watch what goes on in U.S. politics, and this could pave the way for another Charles Taylor or Mugabe-style dictators who abhor opposition, consolidate power, and try to move the country towards a one-party system.

Also, the polarization or divisiveness of U.S. politics could also divert Washington policymakers' attention away from the humanitarian crisis and peace process in Congo and Sudan. Aid to the continent and bilateral talks could also suffer as well. If U.S. politicians can put aside rancor and bitter partisanship, and work together for the common goal of the American people and humanity as a whole I have no doubt that this great country that has been known as the beacon of democracy will continue to provide great leadership that it has been known for-in a world that is becoming a global village.

(originally submitted to the Huffington Post)

Share