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

SELF PERPETRATION IN POWER BY AFRICAN LEADERS: LESSONS FROM EGYPT

By Abiodun Fatai

Why are African leaders fond of perpetrating themselves in power?  This has been the case with the late Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Mohammad Gaddafi of Libya, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Paul Biya of Cameroon, Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, former Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria, Omar Bongo of Gabon and Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, among others. It is simplistic to answer that they are so endeared to the benefits of power and are always unwilling to vacate power when there is need for them to do so. African leaders have been in the habit of designing series of Maradonic and Machiavellian strategies for self perpetuation in power. Yet, it is true that they often forget that power is the only a matrix which has in itself potential for destruction. It is only in Africa that I have seen leaders dying in power or been disgraced from power, after they have refused to heed to simple voice of reason. They just love power. The experience in Europe and other developed societies really shown the willingness of leaders to vacate power when the ovation is loudest. Even at a slightest public disapproval, they show that power is not their personal property. This is not so in Africa; African leaders cherish power and see it as a private property.

The recent events and revolution in Egypt that eventually led to the forcing out of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian President, after turbulent 18 days agitation and protest shows the sheer desperation of African leaders to sit-tight in power without heeding to the voice their people. A similar revolt had earlier taken place in Tunisia where President Zine El Abidine Ben Alli was ousted from power. This sheer desperation is only shrouded in the barefaced arrogance and insensitivity which some African leaders have continued to display against their people. Mubarak’s insistence further make the country ungovernable for 18 days with economic, political and social institutions completely suspended. The simple truism is that the period of the protest has no doubt fostered untold hardship on the Egyptians, which they are not likely to regain in due course.

In a similar manner, the former dictators such as General Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Mohammed Ghaddafi of Libya, Late President Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, and Paul Biya of Cameroon, among others, showed lack of concern and desperation to continue to rule through autocratic disposition with little regard for thier people. The conviction and commitment of the Egyptians over the 18 days of protest depict their resolve to be free from autocratic rule and crass disregard for the plight of humanity. Professor Ben Nwabueze was more poignant when he claimed that “which is driven by the people and their faith in human freedoms? There is no universally prescribed method of revolution, but where the quality of human life is trampled upon and the people’s rights are routinely abused, the people as a collective have a duty to stand up and declaim: “Never again!”

The Egyptians resolve was therefore not unfounded because it was as the result of many years of suppression, brutality, and denial of right and alienation. In spite of what Dr Reuben Abati called the myth,  for example, that religion is a binding factor that makes the Middle Eastern population easier to control and dominate, Egyptians have defied this odd by choosing to fight for their freedom from the manacles and shackles of oppression. The aftermath of the revolution has dubbed it a historic change and has been welcomed from across the world. The EU, US, Germany and UK have all reacted positively  claiming the resolve of the Egyptians have been justified and that it is an historic change capable of catapulting the country  from authoritarian regime to civilian and democratic order.

What lessons are there to be learnt from the revolt in Egypt? What happened in Egypt is a clear lesson to the West, especially United States. It also sounds a clear but unequivocal warning to sit-tight African leaders that their days are numbered. As for the West, it is a lesson that they have to grind their teeth because the Egyptian revolution has caught them in the dilemma of their own logic. When you implicitly support autocratic government for the clear reason of protecting your interest at the behest of the people sovereign in their country, then what you gain is the Egyptian revolution. The west must urgently rethink and learn the lesson. As for the sit-tight African leaders, although it is not clear whether other Africans like the Egyptians have the orientation and the consciousness displayed by the Egyptians in the Egyptian revolution, the truth however is that it is unpredictable when a revolution would be ripe like this. Nevertheless, if the Northern African people most of whom have been dominated and controlled with religion can stage such protest to oust their President, then what happened in Egypt is capable of happening elsewhere. There is certainly a limit to how long the people can be oppressed. The scenario in Egypt and Tunisia therefore serves a serious warning for sit-tight leaders and perpetrators in power.

Abiodun Fatai is a Lecturer in Political Science at the Lagos State University, and a PhD Candidate at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Share