The contribution of a colleague Philippe Remond from Yamoussoukro

of Other media | Monday, April 4, 2011

France must immediately cease its support to the killers of Ouattara! France must immediately recognize all of its malfeasance and lies to impose pro-Western candidate Ouattara dictator! France must immediately demand thugs, barbarians and other rebels and mercenaries that has provided arms and support to stop the killing of nonviolent activists for democracy in the hands naked out by thousands to save democracy and the rule of law in this country or rebel leader Ouattara with his lies and your support has created a climate genocidal! France can not say she did not know. The example of 2004 or trying to overthrow the democratically elected president of Côte d'Ivoire has killed 67 nonviolent activists bare hands among the hundreds of thousands came out to defend democracy. France can not say what he did not know then that four months since the images of the rallies of tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of democracy activists were almost daily! France can not say she did not know then that tonight even tens of thousands of nonviolent activists for democracy have emerged despite shooting thugs and barbarians Ouattara special forces and occupy the bridges and instead of the republic around the palace of president they just elected, and they support! France can not say she did not know then that in a week that the Barbarians weapon killed thousands of people, as they had already killed in 2002 during the previous coup Ouattara! France can not say she did not know then that all the intellectuals and scientists have warned since 4months. France can not say she did not know then that the same people were already at the fearful responsibility Rwanda genocide in which the same function disorder, the same irresponsibility was supporting and arming the murderous has been recognized! ! Mr Sarkozy may expose you to the high courts for treason. Journalists, elected officials, intellectuals your responsibility is total, French, each of us will be accountable to the Ivorian crimes committed with the support of our leaders on our behalf! A special tribute to my colleague Philippe Remond assassinated Thursday because it reflected the mischief of France in Cote d'Ivoire! In Liberation

http://saoti.over-blog.com/article-ouattara-un-criminel-ordinaire-soutenu-par-la-communaute-internationale-ouattara-an-ordinary-criminal-backed-by-the-international-community-70940674.html

UN Fires Troops Commander in Ivory Coast Mission

Mar
19
2011


General Hafiz, Former Chief of the UN Troops in Cote-d'Ivoire
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RESIGNATION OF GENERAL HAFIZ, FORMER HEAD OF THE U.N. FORCES IN COTE D’ IVOIRE

General HAFIZ is no longer the chief of UN troops in Cote d’Ivoire. He was pushed to resignation by his superior. JIN CHOI, the Representative of the Secretary General tried again to distract the International Community by accusing the brave officer of providing classified information to the Ivorian National Television.
So, the Bangladeshi Officer is gone from the Head of the UN unit. He was forced to resign in the midst of a crisis meeting and replaced forthwith by a Togolese general who is probably ready to execute CHOI’s excesses without any remorse.

The forced resignation of General Hafiz follows, according to our sources, the Part 2 of the documentary ”Laurent GBAGBO in the Vortex of the Gulf of Guinea’ , aired those last days on the satellite Ivorian television”; a documentary that shows all the hidden sides of this international plot against Ivorian President.In fact, our sources indicate that for CHOI, General Hafiz would have delivered the information to the Producer of the film.

According to our informants, the representative of Ban Ki-Moon has met his staff last Sunday, March 13, to tell them that, stock of information kept top secret has been published by this documentary. After initially accusing the Ivorian staff of the institution, he accused General Hafiz of being a mole within UNOCI. Unable to bear this humiliation, the senior officer of the Bangladeshi army gave his resignation to CHOI who immediately replaced him as he was expecting it.

But in reality, the Bangladeshi had several times interrogated the goal of the army he was in charge of in Cote d’Ivoire. “Our role has been diverted; I do not understand the new role we are having. The bosses are asking us to fire on civilians, to help the rebels’ camp to fight the regular army. We are not in this country to kill Ivoirians. We are training, arming, transporting the OUATTARA army; I could not take it anymore and I briefed several times CHOI about this unfair situation we are in but it looks like he has another mandate that has nothing to do with preventing war and promoting peace. It is that the main issue. Accusing me of being a mole does not make any sense. Mr. CHOI knows that” confessed General ABDUL HAFIZ (appointed in March 24th 2010) in replacement of General Ferdinand AMOUSSOU from Benin dismissed also from the head of UN forces because he was seen as a pro-GBAGBO who was not willing to fight the country’s regular army.

By Issouf OUATTARA

western Hypocrisy in Ivory Coast

January 8th, 2011

Dr. Gary K. Busch

The Western powers, egged on by France, are calling for a military intervention in the Ivory Coast to solve a political impasse over the race for the Presidency there. The racist and patronising overtones of this policy will not be missed in Asia and Africa. On the 19th of December there was an ‘election’ in Belarus. The President jailed four of the candidates before the vote and his troops were openly involved in the beatings and arrests of scores of opposition candidates, pro-democracy demonstrators and bystanders after the presidential elections. The European Union cannot even agree to apply sanctions against Belarus despite their observers testifying to the abuses and jailings. The U.S has done virtually nothing about this. It is business as usual. This arrogance in the West mirrors its attitude towards other African elections, which have been every bit as conflicted as that in the Ivory Coast, as African ‘Presidents-for-Life’ sought to avoid term limits imposed by their constitutions. It is a holdover of the general contempt expressed by the West for Africans and African institutions.

The West’s attitudes and posturing mask a self-imposed ignorance of the facts and a rejection of any truth which interferes with their preconceived prejudices. They praise and promote Allasane Ouattaara without recognising that he was the “Father of the Rebellion”, which plunged the democratic state of the Ivory Coast into chaos as mercenaries and dismissed soldiers took the French shilling to fight a civil war against Gbagbo and his elected government. He has continued to support the rebels since 2002 and was joined in his rebellious actions by Henri Bedie (Ouattara’s old enemy) in pushing for the rights of the rebels. In other any country of the world this type of activity would be condemned as treason and these traitors and their followers would have been strung up from the nearest tree.

When, in 2002, this band of mercenaries and dismissed soldiers faced the Ivoirian Army they were driven back to Bouake. They were on the path to surrender when the French demanded a 48-hour cessation of hostilities to evacuate the civilians. In that 48-hour interval the French dropped paratroopers into Bouake who stood beside the rebel soldiers so that the Ivoirian Army couldn’t extinguish the rebellion. For four days after that, Burkina Faso sent truckload after truckload of soldiers down to assist in Bouake and weapons and mercenaries arrived from Nimba County in Liberia to augment the rebel ranks. The French saved the rebels.

In all the accords which followed at Linas-Marcoussis, Accra, Pretoria and Ouagadougou there was one common element. The rebels were told to disarm. They refused and still refuse. They are sure their aggression gives them the right to decide who runs the country. There is an important principle in international law “Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur” which states that a party cannot create legal rights for itself by virtue of an act of aggression or injury that it has committed. This was a topic hotly debated within the UN in relation to resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003 (on the question of Iraq). There are other legal questions which arise, especially the “Erga Omnes” dictum encapsulated in the Barcelona Traction Case of 1970, which outlaws acts of aggression and genocide and emphasises the obligations of the international community to protect the human rights of those aggressed against.

In short, the rebels have no rights under the Ivory Coast Constitution. They have acted to destroy the institutions of the State. As such, they do not have rights under Linas-Marcoussis, although they accrued obligations to work towards the restoration of order. As they had no rights under the Constitution or Linas-Marcoussis, they have no rights under Resolution 1633. They only have obligations; to disarm, return the territory they illegally occupy in the North to a unified Ivory Coast; and to end their rebellion against the state. Using the guidelines of Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur, they should not pretend to have acquired rights as a result of their aggression.

Even worse, as a compromise made by the legitimate government of the Ivory Coast it was agreed to appoint a Prime Minister from outside the ruling party and to allocate Cabinet seats to various rebel groups. These thugs and tin pot warlords suddenly became Ministers. They demanded chauffeured cars and fat salaries. They did no work. They demanded jobs for their families in the Civil Service. They turned governance into a running comedy. They were protected in this by the ‘international community’ who forgot about disarmament.

When the pressures became too strong the Ivory Coast Government attempted to curtail the wildest excesses of the rebels. In retaliation, the French troops seized the airport; shot down the nation’s air force and attempted to march on the Presidential palace to capture Gbagbo. The citizens of Abidjan rallied at the Hotel Ivoire, empty-handed to try and present the French from attacking the Presidential palace. On November 6, 2004 the French’ Peacekeepers’ opened fire on unarmed Ivoirians from tanks and armoured cars. You can see for yourself in two videos on You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9XYgmNlpzo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A4l3xg-jvE. Sixty-four Africans were killed and 1.300 wounded. This was all planned as can be seen by the positioning of snipers in the upper rooms.

A colonel of the Ivorian gendarmerie affirmed that French forces on November 9 fired directly and without warning upon the crowd of protestors gathered in front of the Hotel Ivoire in Abidjan. Colonel Georges Guiai Bi Poin, who was in charge of a contingent of Ivorian gendarmes dispatched to control the crowd and coordinate with the French troops, says that the order to fire came from the commander of the latter, colonel D’Estremon. Colonel Gaia Bi Poin is quoted saying: “French troops fired directly into the crowd. They opened fire on the orders of their chief Colonel D’Estremon. without warning.” “Not one of my men fired a shot,” he said. “There were no shots from the crowd. None of the demonstrators was armed — not even with sticks, or knives or rocks.”

The commentary from the ‘international community’ was muted and circumspect. Here, a Western country with a seat on the UN Security Council shot down another nation’s air force and slaughtered its citizens in cold blood and there was barely a ripple from Western commentators. Their next step was to demand that the Ivory Coast dissolve its National Assembly. This was a suggestion by Obasanjo of Nigeria. The UN agreed. The Ivoirians resisted and began to confront the UN ‘peacekeepers’. The UN relented.

The question to be asked is how, in the 21^st century could such a policy of control be carried out. It was clear that the Ivoirian citizens did not agree to be dominated and murdered by the French and other peacekeepers. The answer is more disturbing and ominous. The rebellion was sustained in the Muslim north of the Ivory Coast by the installation of the UN of almost exclusively Muslim peacekeepers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco and Jordan.

See http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unoci/resources.shtml (the deployment.pdf) and you will see that the Muslim rebels of the North are hosts to almost exclusively Muslim UN peacekeepers and these same peacekeepers are now in the South as well. The ostensible reason for the rebellion was that Muslims were not being considered equal citizens in the country. This is not a religious issue; it is cultural one as well as presenting a danger from the large groups of radicalised jihadists incorporated in these peacekeeping troops. Fundamentalism is not their only virtue. In addition to the eighteen French peacekeepers who were tried and convicted in French courts for rape, murder, theft, bank robbery and intimidation in the Ivory Coast there were scores of other UN peacekeepers indicted for similar crimes in the Ivory Coast and elsewhere in Africa. In 2003 UN peacekeepers were repatriated for abuse in Burundi; scores of UN troops were censured for sexual abuse in the Sudan; there were even more in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia; and there are similar accusations and trials which were underway in the Ivory Coast. The United Nations is not now, nor has it ever been a neutral presence in the countries in which it operates, nor have they proved themselves to be more than just another army living off the locals with impunity.

As the US former UN representative, John Bolton, queried during the last deployment of troops to Abidjan “Aren’t these peacekeepers the problem, not the solution?” Maybe it is time for the West to review their levels of ignorance and try to establish a rational policy on how to deal with rabble, traitors and mercenaries; not forgetting frustrated colonialists.

Manufacturing a president in Cote d’Ivoire

Cote d’Ivoire is in a political impasse after the presidential elections that were supposed to reunite the country. What went wrong?

After the failed coup of 2002 and the ensuing military takeover of the northern part of Cote d’Ivoire by rebel forces, there was a round-table discussion in Linas-Marcoussis, France, during which 10 political groups agreed to create a coalition government and a total disarmament of all the rebel groups and militias.

This would be enacted under the supervision of the French and West African forces in preparation of a free and fair presidential election. A new independent electoral commission was created, composed of representatives of the political parties.

The independent electoral commission during these past elections was composed of a total of 461 members, out of which only 42, that is 9 percent, are pro-Laurent Gbagbo, who is Cote d’Ivoire’s incumbent leader. And 419, that is 91 percent, are pro-Alassane Ouattara and the opposition.

The president of the commission, Youssouf Bakayoko, is pro-Ouattara. To offset this imbalance, it was agreed upon that the commission function by consensus and that ballots should be counted both manually and electronically.

The country’s constitution stipulates that the electoral commission should announce the temporary results consensually agreed upon within 72 hours. The Constitutional Council is the only legal authority that will announce the final results, taking into account all irregularities and complaints. It is important to note that the government did disarm all militias in the southern zone under its control. The rebel forces in the north of Cote d’Ivoire did not disarm.

The current deadlock in Cote d’Ivoire stems from the massive fraud that the electronic tally-ups revealed from the votes in the areas of the country still under the control of the armed rebellion. The voting records submitted from these areas showed that there were more voters than were registered.

And, from the testimonies of African election observers, accredited by the Independent Electoral Commission, voters were intimated, pro-Gbagbo voters were physically attacked (including cases of murder), and ballots were being supervised, stuffed, and carried by rebel forces, contrary to election rules. The tally-up of the Bandama voting district under the control of the rebellion was a textbook showcase of vote rigging and a well-defined example of where the electoral commission was having problems finding a tally consensus.

The opposition candidate appeared to receive the following votes from this particular electoral map: Katiola (38,416); Bouake (42,070); Beoumi (19,058); Dabakala (34,398); Sakassou (15,656); that is, a would-be total of 149,598.

However, Sangare Moussa, the head of the Bandama voting district, reported a total of 244,471 votes, which means there were 94,873 surplus votes in favor of the opposition candidate Ouattara. When the ballots were closed, all observers and those of the two candidates asserted that the voter turnout was 70 percent. Hours later, the electoral commission put it to 81 percent, a jump of 11 points.

Then, out of 20,073 manual tally-ups of the votes submitted to electronic verification, 2,000 were rejected for over-stating the numbers of voters compared to the registered voters in the districts, and, altogether, the overestimated voters were more than 600,000.

Out of the 19 electoral maps, the votes from 15 of them were consolidated, but the commission was having problems consolidating the votes in the remaining four areas under the rebellion’s control, where voting irregularities were observed.

In addition to those tally irregularities, the spokesperson of the Independent Electoral Commission, acting without the consensus of (and in spite of the objections of) the Constitutional Council, unilaterally invalidated all the absentee votes from the 28 districts of France (nominally because of fighting among Ivorians in three voting areas in Paris) in both the initial election and the run-off election.

These votes, as well as the voting irregularities in the northern region of Cote d’Ivoire, where the African election observers had also documented beatings, killings, intimidation, and women being publicly stripped of their clothing, should have been submitted to the Constitutional Council for review.

Because of all these irregularities, and because the Electoral Commission could not constitutionally proclaim, within the constitutionally prescribed deadline period, the provisional results that were to be validated by the Constitutional Council, its mandate was terminated, leaving the Constitutional Council to handle these matters.

But, while that procedure was in progress, the president of the defunct Independent Electoral Commission was ushered to the headquarters of the opposition candidate at the Golf Hotel to illegally proclaim Ouattara the winner before the French state and foreign media and the U.N. representative.

The Constitutional Council stated that the defunct Independent Electoral Commission had no right to declare Ouattara the winner, as constitutional electoral procedures had not been followed.

It deemed illegal the U.N. representative’s ratification of would-be provisional results that were illegally proclaimed. The U.N. representative was to ratify the final results that the Constitutional Council would have certified.

The Constitutional Council then analyzed all irregularities and tallies, partially validated some of them and, after the adjustments were completed, proclaimed Gbagbo the winner. Cote d’Ivoire thus descended into a post-electoral nightmare.

Ekra Miezan, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul. He can be reached at ekra@hufs.ac.kr.

The Cameroon supports President Gbagbo

Published in the Rue 89 | Monday, December 27, 2010

In the streets of Yaounde, the debates rage between those who denounce the `foreign interference in Ivorian elections and those who criticize the forcing of Laurent Gbagbo. In October 2011, Cameroonians will elect their President `s. This December 21, 2010, Cameroonians have not won `n of their screen. All followed the debate on post-election crisis in Cote d `Ivoire organized by the first private television station in Yaounde, Canal 2 International. Since the face-to-face televised history of 25 November between Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara, the political situation in Cote d `Ivoire is followed closely by brother country. The Cameroon is taking up the cause of Laurent Gbagbo.

Jean-Claude Awono, writer, explains: "This is happening TODAY in Ivory Coast as Africans interested in all this is happening to our brothers there might as well happen in Cameroon. But beyond this explanation, it `is the crystallization of mainly nationalist and pan-Africanist sentiment that mobilizes the masses. Jean-Michel Nintcheu, MP at the Social Democratic Front (SDF), the main opposition party `s" Street Cameroon, which mostly seems to support Mr. Gbagbo, isn `t basically pro-Gbagbo, but anti-French. "The first case involved in the Ivorian` s `are also good party` s opposition in Cameroon. Thus, the African Movement for New Independence and Democracy (MANIDEM) plans a march in the coming days to support Laurent Gbagbo. Similarly, the Union of peoples of Cameroon has taken up the cause of Ivorian President outgoing. On 4 December, the party sent a letter of congratulations for his "brilliant victory which is the crown of a struggle of the Ivorian people." But within the SDF, the Ivorian situation is making waves. While the party has officially recognized the victory of President Gbagbo, Jean-Michel Nintcheu argues that "African Presidents Paul Biya [President of Cameroon, ed] in mind, would benefit from learning the culture of the alternator. "Radio and TV multiply emissions.

Street and the media `s not beyond the` fad. Coup d `State` s electoral coup against constitutional government, "as The Messenger," Trading Places ", said the newspaper Mutations," The Ivorian crisis shakes the SDF, "we read in La Nouvelle Expression, or" All the agreements that have gutted the power of Laurent Gbagbo, "according to the newspaper Emergence. While radio and television stations multiply interactive programs. Between those who see `s attitude of the international community an interference which is aimed only to` remove Gbagbo from power, and others who think it is a bad loser, mobilization of Cameroonians is felt even in the streets.

As before a newsstand in the Cameroonian capital, Tuesday, December 21, which fuse a particularly vigorous exchange between two clients: "You accuse white people want to hunt Gbagbo. Tell me if they are the ones who voted for Ouattara. - It's not the whites who voted but tell me where Ouattara has found the silver to complete his entire campaign and why the French media support it that way. " Celine, a student: "Laurent Gbagbo has publicly agreed to abide by the verdict of the polls. It must not stand TODAY the nationalist card because he has lost. " But for his comrade Eric: "The international community must respect the Ivorian institutions. It `s the Constitutional Council announces the final results. And this institution has declared Gbagbo the victor. We must respect this result. " As tension mounts in Abidjan, the streets of Yaounde `s inflame the situation in countries of the Elephants ...

Is Ivory Coast becoming Frances’ ‘Iraq’?

In the run up to Iraqi invasion US manipulated the UN organs, mobilized her allies into join her quest to attack Iraq and institute regime change. Few nations saw through this ploy or had the courage to register effective protestation. This was in the name of Iraqis and human rights and danger posed to the world. To day we know better! But we are on the precipice of falling into a similar situation Africa with France pulling the UN. Will Côte d'Ivoire fall victim to this syndrome: where for Iraqi oil, lies and conspiracies of "international community" were handy to oust Saddam Hussein? Will the UN again, on behalf of geo-strategy, cover genocide or conceal greed in Côte d'Ivoire?

The UN Security council resolution of 9^th Dec 2010 backed Alassane Ouattara as the winner of Ivory Coast’s disputed Nov. 28 presidential election, bolstering his challenge to incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and besides condemning the position taken by the Gbagbo, the council also said it would impose “targeted measures” against those standing in the way of the peace process or UN efforts in Ivory Coast. Russia took a very clear position on the condemnation of Ivory Coast. The absence of presidential statement in New York, as Susan Rice, who currently chairs the Security Council for the USA, which had been expected was loud. Russia allowed the release of this press communiqué, on principle, but did not agree and maintained her stance regarding the sovereignty of Côte d’Ivoire – saying that the Unites Nations are not commissioned to state results of presidential elections of a sovereign country. The Chinese government also released a communiqué saying that the law has to prevail, institutions should be respected and that the political dialog should take place.

The media though is awash with the notion that the whole world has isolated Gbagbo’s government, yet divergent views like that of China, Russia and even South Africa and also Angola, and Libya are not being heard for not chorusing the ECOWAS’ nor the African Union’s opinion…The media buzz: to make people believe, via the media, that President Gbagbo is isolated has failed to cause a revolt in the country . There was a general expectation that the population will pour into the streets, demanding that Laurent Gbagbo step down that he had lost according to the provisionary results. On the contrary most of the people in the south divide of the country voiced support for Gbagbo vowing to die to the last man should the country be attacked. The street demonstrations are needed to raise the temperature which saw the calls to match at take over the Ivorian national Radio and Television Station headquarters. This met a rock hard response from Ivorian forces and has now led to rearming of supporters of Mr. Alassane Ouattara, whom the international community overwhelmingly recognises as the legitimate president.

The question that begs an answer is this; Why UN and US through the French forces are arming the rebels? The reason for Gbagbo to order UN and French forces to leave the country was precisely this. According to the Ivorian government sources foreign dispatch, No. 0026 of 21/12/10, "the U.S. government brought in mercenaries in Bouake, via Algiers through Ouagadougou with sophisticated equipment for endangering the lives of legal authorities "of Côte d'Ivoire. UN forces have been reported on RTI giving catches to rebels.

How will the UN achieve its goals if it undermines the very principles of its mission? Might it be the problem of global governance? Where permanent member states of the Security Council, with very important responsibilities, to bring back peace in the world would, on the contrary use the United Nations for their own benefit and serve their agendas. The start of the Côte d’Ivoire crisis in 2002 coincided with the challenge of Iraq. The United Nations was tasked with solving the problem in Côte d’Ivoire and instead of bringing peace in Côte d’Ivoire, France, following the Marcoussis Agreemments, had the Agreement endorsed by the United Nations and has continuously attempted to eject President Gbagbo instead of solving the problem of peace and reconciliation in Côte d’Ivoire.

The United Nation, through France and the United-States, applied pressure for these elections saying that President Gbagbo does not wish to hold them. It was France the author of the Côte d’Ivoire resolution project that would not yield to President Gbagbo objection, that elections be held after the disarmament of the North and the reunification. The Ouagadougou Agreements (APO) pointed out that Ivoirians be mobilized by the help of President Compaoré and that: the elections were to be held two month after the disarmament and reunification.

Why would they ignore the institutions that Cote d’Ivoire has established leave alone her sovereignty? It will not be easy to just remove Gbagbo from power without shedding blood. Who should be responsible for plunging Ivoirians to blood bath? We must expose stand against the bias shown in this case if by it the crisis in Ivory coast could be solved.

Canon Francis Omondi

Anglican Church of Kenya.