Posted on

Cote D’Iviore: After Gbagbo What Next

As the sun finally sets on Laurent Gbagbo’s reign in the cocoa growing nation of West Africa, signifying an imminent collapse of his regime, it has become pertinent to begin to take a look at what the future of Cote D’Ivoire should` look like post Laurent Gbagbo.

That this West African nation has suffered so much instability since the death of its first President, Felix  Houphuet Boigny in 1993, seem like repeating the obvious.

As Alhassane Quattara takes over the mantle of leadership it is important he takes a deep look at the history of his country with a view of identifying the immediate and remote cause[s]  of instability in this once peaceful and economically prosperous nation. He should NOT see himself as a politician who must take back his proverbial “pound of flesh” for the numerous injustices he has suffered, but rather consider himself as a statesman whose primary assignment is the healing of wounds and also reintegration of a country that is divided along ethnic/religious/geographical lines, that is,  [north/islam] and   [south/christianity] dichotomy.

He should also not seek to mete out the treatment visited on him by past Ivorien leaders who denied him his nationality claiming he was a Burkinabe on his rivals but rather invite them to form an all inclusive national government to chart a prosperous future for Cote D’Ivoire. And lastly, he should take a cue from the neighboring West African nation of Ghana whose political leaders have decided to build strong democratic institutions as opposed to the pervasive “personalization” of power rampant in most parts of Africa.

Indeed Quattara must hit the ground running in order to lead his country to the right place she belongs to as the country has lost valuable time bickering over a contrived and avoidable political crisis.

Share
Posted on

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
Posted on

French take over Abidjan airport

BBC News

France has sent extra troops to Ivory Coast’s main city, Abidjan, and taken control of its airport.

It comes as fighting continued between forces loyal to the UN-recognised president, Alassane Ouattara, and his rival, incumbent Laurent Gbagbo.

The city’s pro-Gbagbo TV station called for people to mobilise against the French ‘”occupation”.

An adviser to Mr Ouattara said his forces were preparing a final push to depose Mr Gbagbo, AP reports.

France has sent an extra 300 soldiers to Ivory Coast, military spokesman Thierry Burkhard said, taking the total French force to about 1,400.

The airport had been secured by UN troops since Friday, but the French move meant the airport was now able to re-open, Mr Burkhard said.

He said there were no immediate plans to start evacuating foreigners.

More than 1,500 foreigners are sheltering in a French army camp.

They include about 700 French nationals, some 600 Lebanese citizens and 60 Europeans of assorted nationalities, French media report.

‘Lives at stake’

Ivorian state TV, which is controlled by Mr Gbagbo, accused the French troops of preparing a genocide like the one in Rwanda in 1994, when more than 800,000 people were killed.

A strap line on state TV on Sunday read: “[French President Nicolas] Sarkozy’s men are preparing a Rwandan genocide in Ivory Coast. Ivorians, let us go out en masse and occupy the streets. Let us stay standing.”

Mr Sarkozy has called a cabinet meeting for Sunday afternoon to discuss the crisis in Ivory Coast.

On Saturday, heavy artillery fire was heard in Abidjan as the two sides fought for key sites including the presidential palace, the headquarters of state TV and the Agban military base.

Four UN soldiers were seriously wounded when special forces loyal to Mr Gbagbo fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a UN armoured personnel carrier.

Duekoue ‘massacre’

The west of Ivory Coast has also seen vicious battles between rival militias and ethnic groups. On Saturday, the Caritas aid agency said its staff had found the bodies of hundreds of people in Duekoue, and estimated that 1,000 may have died.

The killings occurred between 27 March and 29 March in the Carrefour district, which was controlled at the time by fighters loyal to Mr Ouattara, spokesman Patrick Nicholson told the Associated Press.

“Caritas does not know who was responsible for the killing, but says a proper investigation must take place to establish the truth,” he said.

Most of the 1,000 peacekeepers based in Duekoue had been protecting about 15,000 refugees at a Catholic mission there, Mr Nicholson added.

The International Committee of the Red Cross put the death toll at about 800, while the UN said more than 330 people were killed as Mr Ouattara’s forces took over Duekoue, most of them at the hands of his fighters. However, more than 100 of them were killed by Mr Gbagbo’s troops, it added.

Sidiki Konate, a spokesman for Mr Ouattara’s government, said that while some people had been killed in the fighting between the two sides in recent days, there had been no deliberate killings of Gbagbo supporters.

ICRC staff who visited Duekoue on Thursday and Friday to gather evidence said the scale and brutality of the killings were shocking.

Tens of thousands of women, men and children have fled the fighting.

Share
Posted on

The Way Libya May Go Next

Obama has spoken, Sarcozy has made up his mind, NATO has taken the lead; all in a bid to get the common enemy they called Maoummar Gaddafi out.  But rebels fighting from Benghazi flank are crude in their approach as they lack regimental command structure. They have demonstrated that they want to take-over power, taking the advantage of the No-Fly-Zone clause of the UN resolution 1973. But Gaddafi troop are reclaiming areas like Adjabya and Sirte, earlier acclaimed to have overrun by the rebels, as more Libyan refugees in their thousands invading the small Italian Island of Lampedusa, Egypt and Tunisia, to escape the crisis.

While the rebels beat a retreat in the face of fierce attacks from Gaddafi’s troops, the prominent actors and top decision-makers in the regime are defecting to the opposition’s side.  Moussa Kuossa, Ghaddafi foreign minister made a surprise entrance into UK, two days ago, and he was followed by others. Most of the defectors were staunch supporters of the tyrannical rule of Gaddafi all these years. Gaddafi is a mean man, he knows what the end would be sooner or later, thus; he would left no stone unturned in dealing with those he referred to as ‘cockroaches, rats, and drug addicts’. Whatever anyone thinks, the end is near for Gaddafi; either he gives way for peaceful transition or he faces humiliation as did Iraqi-once -strongman, Saddam Hussein.

Whatever the stakes are, there is every likelihood that those men bombing and firing missiles from war planes would have to come down; do some infantry job to keep Gaddafi men in check. Or they have to negotiate a soft-landing plank for Gaddafi to step aside. Anything short of this would still give the Libya maximum ruler more opportunity, to kill thousands of the civilian population the No-Fly-Zone is to protect. Because the 1973 is vague and open, various interpretations are being derived from it to achieve a specific purpose. Why is the UN resolution 1973 clause not being applied in Barhain, Syria or Yemen?

Share
Posted on

Libya: Politics of Humanitarian Intervention

Mahmood Mamdani

Iraq and Afghanistan teach us that humanitarian intervention does not end with the removal of the danger it purports to target.

It only begins with it. Having removed the target, the intervention grows and turns into the real problem. This is why to limit the discussion of the Libyan intervention to its stated rationale – saving civilian lives – is barely scratching the political surface.

The short life of the Libyan intervention suggests that we distinguish between justification and execution in writing its biography. Justification was a process internal to the United Nations Security Council, but execution is not.

In addition to authorising a “no-fly zone” and tightening sanctions against “the Gaddafi regime and its supporters”, Resolution 1973 called for “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi.” At the same time, it expressly “excluded a foreign occupation force of any form” or in “any part of Libyan territory”.

UN conflicts

The UN process is notable for two reasons. First, the resolution was passed with a vote of 10 in favour and five abstaining.

The abstaining governments – Russia, China, India, Brazil, Germany – represent the vast majority of humanity.

Even though the African Union had resolved against an external intervention and called for a political resolution to the conflict, the two African governments in the Security Council – South Africa and Nigeria – voted in favour of the resolution.

They have since echoed the sentiments of the governments that abstained, that they did not have in mind the scale of the intervention that has actually occurred.

The second thing notable about the UN process is that though the Security Council is central to the process of justification, it is peripheral to the process of execution.

The Russian and Chinese representatives complained that the resolution left vague “how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be.”

Having authorised the intervention, the Security Council left its implementation to any and all, it “authorised Member States, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements.”

As with every right, this free for all was only in theory; in practise, the right could only be exercised by those who possessed the means to do so. As the baton passed from the UN Security Council to the US and NATO, its politics became clearer.

Money trail

When it came to the assets freeze and arms embargo, the Resolution called on the Secretary-General to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.

Libyan assets are mainly in the US and Europe, and they amount to hundreds of billions of dollars: the US Treasury froze $30bn of liquid assets, and US banks $18bn. What is to happen to interest on these assets?

The absence of any specific arrangement assets are turned into a booty, an interest-free loan, in this instance, to US Treasury and US banks.

Like the military intervention, there is nothing international about the implementing sanctions regime. From its point of view, the international process is no more than a legitimating exercise.

If the legitimation is international, implementation is privatised, passing the initiative to the strongest of member states. The end result is a self-constituted coalition of the willing.

War furthers many interests. Each war is a laboratory for testing the next generation of weapons. It is well known that the Iraq war led to more civilian than military victims.

The debate then was over whether or not these casualties were intended. In Libya, the debate is over facts. It points to the fact that the US and NATO are perfecting a new generation of weapons, weapons meant for urban warfare, weapons designed to minimise collateral damage.

The objective is to destroy physical assets with minimum cost in human lives. The cost to the people of Libya will be of another type. The more physical assets are destroyed, the less sovereign will be the next government in Libya.

Libya’s opposition

The full political cost will become clear in the period of transition. The anti-Gaddafi coalition comprises four different political trends: radical Islamists, royalists, tribalists, and secular middle class activists produced by a Western-oriented educational system.

Of these, only the radical Islamists, especially those linked organisationally to Al Qaeda, have battle experience.

They – like NATO – have the most to gain in the short term from a process that is more military than political. This is why the most likely outcome of a military resolution in Libya will be an Afghanistan-type civil war.

One would think that this would be clear to the powers waging the current war on Libya, because they were the same powers waging war in Afghanistan. Yet, they have so far showed little interest in a political resolution. Several facts point to this.

The African Union delegation sent to Libya to begin discussions with Col. Gaddafi in pursuit of a political resolution to the conflict was denied permission to fly over Libya – and thus land in Tripoli – by the NATO powers.

The New York Times reported that Libyan tanks on the road to Benghazi were bombed from the air Iraq War-style, when they were retreating and not when they were advancing.

The two pilots of the US fighter jet F15-E that crashed near Benghazi were rescued by US forces on the ground, now admitted to be CIA operatives, a clear violation of Resolution 1973 that points to an early introduction of ground forces.

The logic of a political resolution was made clear by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in a different context: “We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is.”

That Clinton has been deaf to this logic when it comes to Libya is testimony that so far, the pursuit of interest has defied learning political lessons of past wars, most importantly Afghanistan.

Marx once wrote that important events in history occur, as it were, twice – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. He should have added, that for its victims, farce is a tragedy compounded.

Mahmood Mamdani is professor and director of Makerere Institute of Social Research at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, and Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University, New York. He is the author, most recently of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War and the Roots of Terror, and Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror.

Originally published on http://english.aljazeera.net on March 31, 2011. Republished on talkafrique.com on April 2, 2011. Courtesy Tunde Oseni

Share
Posted on

External Meddling in Africa Has Led to Continental Stagnation and Chaos

YOWERI MUSEVENI

By YOWERI MUSEVENI, President of Uganda

It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. This, and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling, have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa.

The wrong priorities in many African countries are, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted.

I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities in Uganda. External interests linked, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about this.

If you promote foreign backed insurrections in small countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China, which has got a different system from the West? Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over China in case of some internal insurrections as happened in Tiananmen Square or in Tibet?

The Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions.

We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda who killed Americans on 9/11, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success.

Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by western companies on account of Gaddafi’s nationalist posture?

The West is always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the Third World — Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these countries were the ones impeding growth in those countries.

There was a military coup d’état that slowly became a revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt.

The West denied him money because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. Israel, France and Britain attacked him.

Another negative point is going to arise out of the habit of the Western countries overusing their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed societies without impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is “right.”

I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades, we may have a more armed world.

All this notwithstanding, Mr Gaddafi should be ready to sit down with the opposition, through the mediation of the AU, with the opposition cluster of groups which now includes individuals well known to us — Ambassador Abdalla, Dr Zubeda, etc. I know Gaddafi has his system of elected committees that end up in a National People’s Conference.

There is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, dialogue is the correct way forward.

The AU mission could not get to Libya because the Western countries started bombing Libya the day before they were supposed to arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extraordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation.

Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes because quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years — Mobutu, Houphet-Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc.

Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the Black people of Southern Sudan.

With the democratisation of South Africa and the freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western Governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rash actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly.

Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. To be puppets is not good.

Mr Museveni is President of Uganda This piece was first published in Daily Nation (Nairobi) on Tuesday 22.03.2011 and pubished at talkafrique.com on 24.03.2011

Share
Posted on

No-Fly Zone Over Libya Established; Gadhafi Threatens ‘Long War’

VOA

The top U.S. military officer says a U.N.-authorized no-fly zone over Libya is “effectively” in place after the United States and its allies carried out a series of cruise missile attacks and airstrikes on Libyan military targets.

Admiral Mike Mullen told U.S. television networks Sunday that no Libyan government aircraft have flown over the country since the U.S.-led military operation began Saturday against Libyan air defenses and ground forces.

The no-fly zone is aimed at protecting Libyan civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who is trying to crush a month-long uprising against his 42-year rule.

The U.S. military’s Germany-based Africa Command says the United States used F-15 and F-16 warplanes and three B-2 stealth bombers in a series of airstrikes on pro-Gadhafi forces before dawn Sunday.

Mullen says the airstrikes targeted Libyan government troops near the eastern city of Benghazi, stopping them from marching on the opposition stronghold. Witnesses say the attacks destroyed dozens of military vehicles, leaving the bodies of pro-Gadhafi fighters strewn in the wreckage.

Western warplanes also dropped bombs on the outskirts of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, early Sunday, drawing anti-aircraft fire from government forces.

Gadhafi responded to the U.S.-led attacks by threatening to engage Western powers in a “long war.”

In an audio address broadcast on state television early Sunday, Gadhafi labelled the United States and its allies as the “devil” and accused them of plotting to steal Libya’s oil. He said his government has opened arms depots to Libyans to enable them to resist foreign forces.

Thousands of Gadhafi supporters have gathered at his highly-fortified Bab al-Azizia residence in Tripoli. Admiral Mullen accused the Libyan leader of using human shields to try to thwart coalition attacks.

Libyan state television says the airstrikes and missiles have killed at least 48 people, including children, and wounded about 150. Mullen says he has seen no evidence of civilian casualties from the operation.

The White House says President Barack Obama got an update on the military operation in a conference call with U.S. national security officials as he visited Brazil Sunday. It says he also discussed diplomatic consultations on the situation in Libya with the advisers, who included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Earlier, Obama said the Libyan leader had given the West no choice but to take military action.

The operation began Saturday with French airstrikes and the firing of more than 100 cruise missiles by U.S. and British vessels in the Mediterranean. The U.S. Africa Command says the missile strikes destroyed 20 out 22 Libyan air defense facilities, while the status of the other two targets was being assessed.

Admiral Mullen said the United States expects to hand over leadership of the no-fly zone operation to its partners and play a supporting role in the coming days. He said the operation could achieve its goals even if Gadhafi holds onto power.

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution Thursday authorizing the no-fly zone and the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from attacks by pro-Gadhafi forces. Libyan government forces had been closing in on rebel-held towns.

The air and missile strikes represent the biggest international military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 U.S.-led led invasion of Iraq.

Share
Posted on

Before Egypt and Libya, There was Ivory Coast

Libya (left), Ivory Coast (right)

Foreign Policy Hypocrisy of Our Generation

Over the past two months, the world has keenly being following the political events in Egypt and Libya. Television screen at homes, schools, workplaces and major airport had one item on the waiting list: when the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would make his next statement and what would be the response of the US President Barack Obama. Facebook and Twitter were and are still floating in traffic like hell. Journalists who were hitherto unknown are now household names because of their coverage of the North African revolution. Some journalists were happily beaten up just to cover the news and they still enjoy it. Some risked their very lives just get their stories out.

The situation in Egypt and Libya ‘needed’ to be covered; the two countries play strategic roles in the US and European countries’ foreign policies. Both countries hold sweet big oil in their bosoms and the West likes that milk. Egypt does not directly make a momentous contribution to the global oil supply but it hosts the Suez Canal which is a major boulevard for oil transport to the US and other western countries. It’s also an excellent vacationer destination for the most westerners who periodically need to take a break. Libya, on the other hand, is a big player in the global oil market. The country is a swollen with pride for being a member of the OPEC and is the world’s 17th largest oil producer, the third-largest producer in Africa and holds the continent’s largest crude oil treasury. About 85% of Libya’s oil is exported to Europe. The penalty of the crisis in the two countries need not be recounted. In the US, regular fuel is now nearly $4 per gallon. Doesn’t this explain why twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC and BBC are on Libya 24/7?

Another country, on the same continent, which is on the threshold of civil war and perhaps genocide, is the Ivory Coast. In fact the situation in the Ivory Coast started several months before there was a single protest in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. How much on Ivory Coast can we find on Facebook feeds? How much is atwitter? When was the last time you heard somebody call the US too weak for not calling on Laurent Gbagbo to hand over to the constitutionally elected president? In fact, how many even know who that man is?

Two weeks ago, six women were killed in the Ivory Coast by forces supporting the incumbent tyrant Laurent Gbagbo, while on a peaceful demonstration. How much coverage did the western media bestow to that story? Actually, have you heard it? How many American reporters have questioned the President of the US or his Press Secretary where US stands on the Ivory Coast crisis?

Well, the truth is unlike Egypt and Libya, the Ivory Coast has not yet had a dream of producing oil for their local consumption, how much less to export to Europe or North America. The nation has no strategic importance to either the US or UK. Genocide in Ivory Coast will not result in one cent increase in fuel price. Will it? Ivory Coast is by far the world’s leading producer of cocoa beans, and that where your chocolate comes from. The Ivory Coast crisis may lead to some increase in the price of chocolate, but don’t we celebrate Valentine Day only once a year?

Why does the Ivory Coast deserve less than Egypt and Libya. The silence demonstrated by the World’s powers towards the Ivory Crisis is deafening, and even embarrassing.

Thanks for reading?

[ad#Adsense-200by200sq]

Share