Open letter to President Barack H. Obama

Mr. President,
On November 28, 2010, the people of Cote d’Ivoire casted their ballots in the second round of a presidential election to democratically elect their leader and put an end to eight years of tears and sufferings that are the outcome of a 2002 failed coup. This failed coup, transmuted into a rebellion, has since split Cote d’Ivoire into a legalist South and rebellious North. The verdict of last November’s election validated and proclaimed by the Constitutional Council of Cote d’Ivoire is now being challenged by Mr. Ouattara and his rebel group who boast of having your official unction. The present situation in Cote d’Ivoire is one more consequence of an ineffective, partial, business-driven, and contradictory United Nations Organization that, especially in Africa, has always promised one thing, achieved the opposite, thrown its hands in the air, and left after having wreaked havoc. In Cote d’Ivoire, after its blatant failure to disarm a rebel group, the UNOCI is now maneuvering to impose that rebel group to the people of Cote d’Ivoire as legitimate substitution to the legal authority.
Mr. President, I am afraid that your support for Mr. Alassane Ouattara, who claims victory from a hotel room in Abidjan, surrounded by the main actors of the Northern rebellion that by most observers’ accounts have perpetrated the most atrocious human abuses in Cote d’Ivoire, not only adds to the incongruity of the circumstances that have progressively lent legitimacy to the lawless insurgents that have attacked the legal institutions Cote d’Ivoire in 2002, but also discourages democracy in Africa by shunning President Laurent Gbagbo, one of the rare leaders on the continent willing to govern on constitutional bases, that is, on the foundation of democracy. Mr. President, I am certainly far too ill-positioned to dare to instruct you in the principles of democracy. I believe, however, that the anchor for any democratic society should remain that society’s constitution. One can debate on the quality of such and such constitutions—and, on this matter, no constitution can pass the test of flawlessness—but it is unquestionably with a minimum of respect for the laws erected by its nation that a people starts its successful march toward a democratic system.
Mr. President, when on December 4, 2010, after reviewing the detailed reports of massive electoral frauds, the Constitutional Council, which is the highest authority on electoral matters, invalidated the contentious votes, and reached a final decision that declared incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo the winner of the presidential elections in Cote d’Ivoire, the Council was upholding its constitutional duty. That duty is to resolve electoral inconsistencies, validate the final results and proclaim the winner. Mr. President, one can argue that a law is unjust, but one cannot take upon oneself to violate it on the basis of that argument and still pretend to be in synch with the state that erected that law. By rejecting the decision of the Constitutional Council, by circumventing all due process, by transporting the President of the Election Committee to his election headquarter to anoint him winner of the elections in the absence of the other members of the committee, and by organizing for himself a parallel presidential investiture ceremony in a hotel room in order to throw uncertainty in the free process, Mr. Ouattara, as has been his standard practice, has shown profound disdain for the laws of a country that he aspires to lead as much as he is undermining democracy in Cote d’Ivoire. With all due respect Mr. President, Mr. Ouattara’s reckless disregard for due process and legality, as displayed in his multiple rogue postures that undercut Africa’s efforts toward democracy, does not merit that one lend it legitimacy. For memory, when the Supreme Court in the U.S. gave its verdict in favor of President Bush in settling an electoral crisis, Mr. Gore submitted to this highest authority. He did not withdraw at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C., to defy the American Supreme Court’s verdict with a self-proclamation and a parallel oath-taking. One cannot continue to appreciate African realities with a set of standards that are antithetic to democracy, that encourage lawlessness, and, at the same time, urge that Africans live by the principles of democracy. Is it not paradoxical that most of the heads of state of the African Union who, in a circumfession to the European Union, are clamoring for Mr. Ouattara and isolating President Gbagbo have come to and maintained themselves in power through unorthodox methods? Are these autocrats the purveyors of the ethical measure we should want for the “Africa of the new Millennium”?
Mr. President, for being born in Cote d’Ivoire, for having lived there as long as I have lived in the United States, for having examined and written extensively on Cote d’Ivoire in particular and Africa in its relationships with the rest of the world in general, I believe that I can dare to call myself a scholar of African questions. As such, Mr. President, and with all due respect, allow me to say that on the Ivorian question, Most Ivorians have the perception that you have sided with the victimizer against the victim, with the unlawful against the lawful, with the undemocratic against the democratic. Observers of African politics will recognize that Mr. Gbagbo is a champion of democracy. His struggle for a multiparty system traces back thirty years. He fought President Felix Houphouet Boigny (the father of Ivorian independence) at a time when the expression “multiparty system” was still an incongruity in Ivorian politics. With his spouse and supporters he endured years of beating, prison, privation, torture, even under the leadership of Prime Minister Ouattara who, today, seeks to pass for a martyr of democracy. Mr. Gbagbo led his struggle with the force of arguments and protest marches, without once ordering a coup against his country. When he got elected in 2000, President Gbagbo invited all political leaders in exile to return to Cote d’Ivoire; he ushered in a government of national reconciliation that saw the participation of members of all political parties; he organized a forum of reconciliation to heal the country’s wounds–for indeed the country had gone trough profound divisions because of Ouattara’s, Bedie’s, and General Guei’s bloody struggles for succession. To reward President Gbagbo for his democratic wisdom, Mr. Ouattara sent him a rebellion that, since 2002, has interrupted President Gbagbo’s program of poverty reduction. Mr. President, time and space will not allow me to give full attention to Mr. Ouattara’s cyclical adherence to violence and undemocratic methods and to Mr. Gbagbo’s indefatigable struggle for democracy. I have amply discussed these matters elsewhere. Allow me, however, to register my deep puzzlement about your position in the Ivorian crisis. I do not understand your stance, though I fully understand President Sarkozy’s and France’s in general.
Being the official guarantor of the maintenance and prolongation of Françafrique, France’s exploitative relationship with Africa, as well as being a personal friend of the Ouattaras, President Sarkozy could hardly have acted otherwise. President Sarkozy, who, as the Mayor of Neuilly, officiated Mr. and Mrs. Ouattara’s wedding, and who was their guest of honor at that same wedding, is a good friend of the Ouattaras’. Mrs. Dominique Ouattara’s international businesses have some big clients of whom Martin Bouygues, the French king of concrete, Vincent Bolloré (business partner of Bouygues) king of cigarette paper and media—it was Bolloré who paid the new French president a vacation trip to Malta on his luxurious boat as a congratulation present after the 2006 French presidential election; it was he again who lent his private Falcon 900 to Sarkozy and his then new girlfriend Carla Bruni for their December 25, 2007 vacation trip to Egypt—and Dominique Strauss-Khan, former minister of finance of President Mitterrand and IMF president since 2007. Most of these businessmen have made immense fortunes in Cote d’Ivoire by acquiring, sometimes for a symbolic franc, former Ivorian state companies (water, electricity, railroads, etc.) which were privatized by Mr. Ouattara when the latter was Prime Minister of Cote d’Ivoire.
Indeed, Mr. Ouattara is not a newcomer in the Ivorian political arena. He had a chance to govern when, under pressure from the IMF, an indebted and crippled President Houphouet Boigny appointed him Prime Minister. Under Mr. Ouattara’s stewardship, most of the panel lights of the Ivorian economy turned hazardously red. Mr. Ouattara cut subsidies to farmers, as recommended by the WTO, while the European Union and the United States were, at the same time, heavily backing their own farmers financially; he dismissed more than 10,000 employees from the state payroll. Those who were lucky to keep their jobs saw their salaries reduced by 40 percent or were forced to accept an early retirement package. He reduced access to early education by freezing the recruitment of new teachers and by slashing teachers’ salaries in half. He closed students’ subsidized restaurants. He eliminated transportation and basic healthcare services for students. He imposed fees on the masses for basic healthcare services. He initiated the devaluation of the CFA at the rate of 100 CFA francs for 1 French franc. He instituted the highly controversial resident cards for foreigners, which was the source of much harassment toward foreign nationals coming from neighboring African countries. These measures, as it was to be expected, frustrated the masses even further, and workers and students’ demonstrations intensified; which, under his orders, were repressed in blood. Many students were killed and student, union, and opposition leaders, among whom, President Laurent Gbagbo, were jailed and tortured amidst international outcries and unsuccessful calls for an independent investigation.
Mr. President, I believe that Democracy entails good governance, which for Africa implies that the leaders of Africa should undertake a thorough inventory of the continent’s resources and rethink the exploitation of these resources within a design that takes as fundamental the welfare of the people on whose land these resources are located. It implies that Africa’s intellectuals take the core states at their words and bring some missing wisdom into the core states’ and their surrogate financial institutions’ conjectures about good governance by reminding them, constantly, that good governance has much to do with legitimate individual states identifying their people’s needs and fulfilling these needs without any duress exercised on them by the core states, without any financial blackmailing, without the martial installation of marionette regimes, but above all, without the cooptation of abandonment-neurotic national elites lured by the promise of Firstworldist enjoyment. This has been President Gbagbo’s struggle; a struggle for his people, which in my sense, is far from constituting a reason to shun him.
As an African leader concerned with France’s economic monopoly in his country and committed to his country’s betterment through economic independence that comes with the diversification of partnerships, President. Gbagbo is clearly a killjoy for Françafrique, this most unhealthy master/slave relationship that France insists on having with its former colonies. Under the pretense of reciprocity, Françafrique is actually a criminal machine designed to ensure France’s position as a major world player by guaranteeing it privileged access to Africa’s agricultural and geological resources, by financing France’s expensive political life, and by positioning France as America’s preferred sub-contractor. Françafrique’s actions in Congo and Rwanda have shown us that Francafrique is not just a factory of economic genocide in Africa. It is also a factory of human genocide. To ask that France-African relationships rest on reciprocity is only fair. It should not constitute cause for manipulation and crucifixion. We should be guarded not to erect shrines to African fighters for social equality only after the fact, only after we have pushed them off the cliff of reciprocity.
With my highest regards,
Dr. Martial Frindéthié

Open letter to President Barack H. Obama

Mr. President,
On November 28, 2010, the people of Cote d’Ivoire casted their ballots in the second round of a presidential election to democratically elect their leader and put an end to eight years of tears and sufferings that are the outcome of a 2002 failed coup. This failed coup, transmuted into a rebellion, has since split Cote d’Ivoire into a legalist South and rebellious North. The verdict of last November’s election validated and proclaimed by the Constitutional Council of Cote d’Ivoire is now being challenged by Mr. Ouattara and his rebel group who boast of having your official unction. The present situation in Cote d’Ivoire is one more consequence of an ineffective, partial, business-driven, and contradictory United Nations Organization that, especially in Africa, has always promised one thing, achieved the opposite, thrown its hands in the air, and left after having wreaked havoc. In Cote d’Ivoire, after its blatant failure to disarm a rebel group, the UNOCI is now maneuvering to impose that rebel group to the people of Cote d’Ivoire as legitimate substitution to the legal authority.
Mr. President, I am afraid that your support for Mr. Alassane Ouattara, who claims victory from a hotel room in Abidjan, surrounded by the main actors of the Northern rebellion that by most observers’ accounts have perpetrated the most atrocious human abuses in Cote d’Ivoire, not only adds to the incongruity of the circumstances that have progressively lent legitimacy to the lawless insurgents that have attacked the legal institutions Cote d’Ivoire in 2002, but also discourages democracy in Africa by shunning President Laurent Gbagbo, one of the rare leaders on the continent willing to govern on constitutional bases, that is, on the foundation of democracy. Mr. President, I am certainly far too ill-positioned to dare to instruct you in the principles of democracy. I believe, however, that the anchor for any democratic society should remain that society’s constitution. One can debate on the quality of such and such constitutions—and, on this matter, no constitution can pass the test of flawlessness—but it is unquestionably with a minimum of respect for the laws erected by its nation that a people starts its successful march toward a democratic system.
Mr. President, when on December 4, 2010, after reviewing the detailed reports of massive electoral frauds, the Constitutional Council, which is the highest authority on electoral matters, invalidated the contentious votes, and reached a final decision that declared incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo the winner of the presidential elections in Cote d’Ivoire, the Council was upholding its constitutional duty. That duty is to resolve electoral inconsistencies, validate the final results and proclaim the winner. Mr. President, one can argue that a law is unjust, but one cannot take upon oneself to violate it on the basis of that argument and still pretend to be in synch with the state that erected that law. By rejecting the decision of the Constitutional Council, by circumventing all due process, by transporting the President of the Election Committee to his election headquarter to anoint him winner of the elections in the absence of the other members of the committee, and by organizing for himself a parallel presidential investiture ceremony in a hotel room in order to throw uncertainty in the free process, Mr. Ouattara, as has been his standard practice, has shown profound disdain for the laws of a country that he aspires to lead as much as he is undermining democracy in Cote d’Ivoire. With all due respect Mr. President, Mr. Ouattara’s reckless disregard for due process and legality, as displayed in his multiple rogue postures that undercut Africa’s efforts toward democracy, does not merit that one lend it legitimacy. For memory, when the Supreme Court in the U.S. gave its verdict in favor of President Bush in settling an electoral crisis, Mr. Gore submitted to this highest authority. He did not withdraw at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C., to defy the American Supreme Court’s verdict with a self-proclamation and a parallel oath-taking. One cannot continue to appreciate African realities with a set of standards that are antithetic to democracy, that encourage lawlessness, and, at the same time, urge that Africans live by the principles of democracy. Is it not paradoxical that most of the heads of state of the African Union who, in a circumfession to the European Union, are clamoring for Mr. Ouattara and isolating President Gbagbo have come to and maintained themselves in power through unorthodox methods? Are these autocrats the purveyors of the ethical measure we should want for the “Africa of the new Millennium”?
Mr. President, for being born in Cote d’Ivoire, for having lived there as long as I have lived in the United States, for having examined and written extensively on Cote d’Ivoire in particular and Africa in its relationships with the rest of the world in general, I believe that I can dare to call myself a scholar of African questions. As such, Mr. President, and with all due respect, allow me to say that on the Ivorian question, Most Ivorians have the perception that you have sided with the victimizer against the victim, with the unlawful against the lawful, with the undemocratic against the democratic. Observers of African politics will recognize that Mr. Gbagbo is a champion of democracy. His struggle for a multiparty system traces back thirty years. He fought President Felix Houphouet Boigny (the father of Ivorian independence) at a time when the expression “multiparty system” was still an incongruity in Ivorian politics. With his spouse and supporters he endured years of beating, prison, privation, torture, even under the leadership of Prime Minister Ouattara who, today, seeks to pass for a martyr of democracy. Mr. Gbagbo led his struggle with the force of arguments and protest marches, without once ordering a coup against his country. When he got elected in 2000, President Gbagbo invited all political leaders in exile to return to Cote d’Ivoire; he ushered in a government of national reconciliation that saw the participation of members of all political parties; he organized a forum of reconciliation to heal the country’s wounds–for indeed the country had gone trough profound divisions because of Ouattara’s, Bedie’s, and General Guei’s bloody struggles for succession. To reward President Gbagbo for his democratic wisdom, Mr. Ouattara sent him a rebellion that, since 2002, has interrupted President Gbagbo’s program of poverty reduction. Mr. President, time and space will not allow me to give full attention to Mr. Ouattara’s cyclical adherence to violence and undemocratic methods and to Mr. Gbagbo’s indefatigable struggle for democracy. I have amply discussed these matters elsewhere. Allow me, however, to register my deep puzzlement about your position in the Ivorian crisis. I do not understand your stance, though I fully understand President Sarkozy’s and France’s in general.
Being the official guarantor of the maintenance and prolongation of Françafrique, France’s exploitative relationship with Africa, as well as being a personal friend of the Ouattaras, President Sarkozy could hardly have acted otherwise. President Sarkozy, who, as the Mayor of Neuilly, officiated Mr. and Mrs. Ouattara’s wedding, and who was their guest of honor at that same wedding, is a good friend of the Ouattaras’. Mrs. Dominique Ouattara’s international businesses have some big clients of whom Martin Bouygues, the French king of concrete, Vincent Bolloré (business partner of Bouygues) king of cigarette paper and media—it was Bolloré who paid the new French president a vacation trip to Malta on his luxurious boat as a congratulation present after the 2006 French presidential election; it was he again who lent his private Falcon 900 to Sarkozy and his then new girlfriend Carla Bruni for their December 25, 2007 vacation trip to Egypt—and Dominique Strauss-Khan, former minister of finance of President Mitterrand and IMF president since 2007. Most of these businessmen have made immense fortunes in Cote d’Ivoire by acquiring, sometimes for a symbolic franc, former Ivorian state companies (water, electricity, railroads, etc.) which were privatized by Mr. Ouattara when the latter was Prime Minister of Cote d’Ivoire.
Indeed, Mr. Ouattara is not a newcomer in the Ivorian political arena. He had a chance to govern when, under pressure from the IMF, an indebted and crippled President Houphouet Boigny appointed him Prime Minister. Under Mr. Ouattara’s stewardship, most of the panel lights of the Ivorian economy turned hazardously red. Mr. Ouattara cut subsidies to farmers, as recommended by the WTO, while the European Union and the United States were, at the same time, heavily backing their own farmers financially; he dismissed more than 10,000 employees from the state payroll. Those who were lucky to keep their jobs saw their salaries reduced by 40 percent or were forced to accept an early retirement package. He reduced access to early education by freezing the recruitment of new teachers and by slashing teachers’ salaries in half. He closed students’ subsidized restaurants. He eliminated transportation and basic healthcare services for students. He imposed fees on the masses for basic healthcare services. He initiated the devaluation of the CFA at the rate of 100 CFA francs for 1 French franc. He instituted the highly controversial resident cards for foreigners, which was the source of much harassment toward foreign nationals coming from neighboring African countries. These measures, as it was to be expected, frustrated the masses even further, and workers and students’ demonstrations intensified; which, under his orders, were repressed in blood. Many students were killed and student, union, and opposition leaders, among whom, President Laurent Gbagbo, were jailed and tortured amidst international outcries and unsuccessful calls for an independent investigation.
Mr. President, I believe that Democracy entails good governance, which for Africa implies that the leaders of Africa should undertake a thorough inventory of the continent’s resources and rethink the exploitation of these resources within a design that takes as fundamental the welfare of the people on whose land these resources are located. It implies that Africa’s intellectuals take the core states at their words and bring some missing wisdom into the core states’ and their surrogate financial institutions’ conjectures about good governance by reminding them, constantly, that good governance has much to do with legitimate individual states identifying their people’s needs and fulfilling these needs without any duress exercised on them by the core states, without any financial blackmailing, without the martial installation of marionette regimes, but above all, without the cooptation of abandonment-neurotic national elites lured by the promise of Firstworldist enjoyment. This has been President Gbagbo’s struggle; a struggle for his people, which in my sense, is far from constituting a reason to shun him.
As an African leader concerned with France’s economic monopoly in his country and committed to his country’s betterment through economic independence that comes with the diversification of partnerships, President. Gbagbo is clearly a killjoy for Françafrique, this most unhealthy master/slave relationship that France insists on having with its former colonies. Under the pretense of reciprocity, Françafrique is actually a criminal machine designed to ensure France’s position as a major world player by guaranteeing it privileged access to Africa’s agricultural and geological resources, by financing France’s expensive political life, and by positioning France as America’s preferred sub-contractor. Françafrique’s actions in Congo and Rwanda have shown us that Francafrique is not just a factory of economic genocide in Africa. It is also a factory of human genocide. To ask that France-African relationships rest on reciprocity is only fair. It should not constitute cause for manipulation and crucifixion. We should be guarded not to erect shrines to African fighters for social equality only after the fact, only after we have pushed them off the cliff of reciprocity.
With my highest regards,
Dr. Martial Frindéthié

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

basic facts surrounding Ivory coast election of November 28th

I listened to The EU chief observer give report on the elections in Ivory coast castigating the constitutional court and claiming that Quattara won fair and square painfully. this made me juxtapose his statement against the report i have made available on this blog please read and share your comments:

Francis

On December 3 the Ivory Coast’s Constitutional Council determined that Laurent Gbagbo was the winner of the November 28 election runoff, winning 51.45% of the vote to Alassane Ouattara’s 48.55% (see Attachment A, pp. 8-9). The Constitutional Council is the supreme election judicial authority in the Ivory Coast according to the Ivory Coast Constitution, charged with “proclaim[ing] the definitive results of… presidential elections” (see Attachment B, Article 94). Its decisions are final and “not susceptible to any recourse” (see Attachment B, Article 98).

Previously on December 2, the head of the Independent Electoral Commission, Youssouf Bakayoko, announced on French TV from the opposition headquarters hotel that Mr. Ouattara had won the election. The Commission, where representatives from political parties opposed to Mr. Gbagbo and his Ivorian Popular Front (FPI) party dominate by a 20-2 margin by law and appointment (see Attachment C and Attachment D), is limited to overseeing election mechanics and publishing only provisional results “for which the final announcement of results is the exclusive competence of the Constitutional Council” (see Attachment E – Act No. 2004-642 amending Act No. 2001-634 – and also Attachment B, Article 32).

Mr. Bakayoko’s results – announced contrary to the express regulations governing the conduct of that Commission (see Attachment F) – were “certified” as definitive by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative Y.J. Choi. They have since been cited in an international rush to judgment, and in manner neglecting the Electoral Commission’s constitutionally circumscribed role of determining only provisional election results and the Constitutional Council’s constitutionally supreme role in determining final election results.

The United Nations and other international actors have subsequently rushed to insist that Mr. Ouattara has legally ascended to the Presidency, despite Mr. Ouattara failing to adhere to the constitutionally mandated protocols governing presidential election proclamations, and failing to meet the required obligations governing inaugurations (see Attachment B, Article 39).

On the basis of the Constitutional Council’s decision, which cited election irregularities in 7 provinces (see Attachment A), the Ivory Coast government believes that Pres. Gbagbo is the constitutionally elected president, that the international community has rushed to judgment in declaring Mr. Ouattara the election winner, and that the evidence that lead the Constitutional Council to make its decision has not been fairly evaluated by the international community. Third party and news wire reports validate claims of irregularities, such as:

• Reuters reported that the European Union observer mission issued a statement accusing the Electoral Commission of “unacceptable obstruction.” The statement also noted that “despite a number of requests addressed to the [Electoral Commission], the EU mission continues to face significant obstacles accessing electoral operations” (see Attachment G).
• In those areas where the EU did have access, according to Radio France Internationale/Agence France Presse, UN observer mission head Cristian Peda noted “irregularities, some obstacles on the day of the vote and serious tension.” (see Attachment H) Additional Agence France Presse reports conveyed how “barriers were observed blocking people from voting… including in Gbagbo’s hometown of Gagnoa,” and how “ballots were stolen” (see Attachment I).
• Observer reports from certain African civil society groups confirmed substantial irregularities.
  • The Observer Mission of the African Union noted “serious acts of violence, namely losses of human lives, infringement of physical integrity, intimidations, and abduction attempts and damage to electoral material,” including cases where Mr. Gbagbo’s representatives were “unable to participate in any polling process” in an entire district. The mission documented over 70 polling stations where results were “signed either in the absence of [Mr. Gbagbo’s] representatives, or by themselves under… constraint,” concluded that the ballot process in those locations “could not be held in the transparent way which is essential for the honesty of the ballot,” and noted that the events “constitute[d] an important technicality” in the election. The mission called for “careful assessment from the competent institutions… to determinate their impact on the ballots” (see Attachment J, esp pp i, 2, and 6).
  • A coalition of 21 non-governmental organizations under the umbrella of the Coordination of the Observers from the International Mission of the African Civil Society (COMISCA), reported that “some active members and representatives of the LMP Party were prevented from voting freely, ballot boxes were carried by men in uniform precisely in the Korhogo, Mankono, and Seguela areas, [they] witnessed… manhandling of some persons inside the polling stations, the ballot secrecy was violated and instructions on how to vote were given by some members of the polling stations, some corporal and material damages were recorded as well.” COMISCA ultimately concluded that the circumstances “strongly called into question” “the democratic process” (see Attachment K).
  • CEPECA, The Organization of the emissaries for the promotion of credible elections in Africa, “denounced the violence and barbarous deed perpetuated on [Mr. Gbagbo’s] representatives,” noting among other irregularities that Mr. Gbagbo’s representatives were in places prevented from voting and subject to verbal and physical attacks, that ex-rebels took ballot boxes to unknown places, that “there was stuffing of ballots on a large scale” and “serious infringement of human rights,” and that section agents gave orders favoring the opposition (see Attachment L).
  • An EU-funded domestic coalition of 134 civil society groups under the umbrella of the Convention of Ivorian Civil Society (CSCI), the largest civil society coalition in the Ivory Coast, dispatched over 1,000 monitors to 38% of the polling stations. They noted late and insufficient election material, violence and intimidation at polling stations, destruction of ballots and ballot boxes, multiple voting, barring of voters, barring of monitors, and the insecure transfer of ballots, including attacks on convoys (see Attachment M).
  • The African Civil Society for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, OSCADAE, concluded that “the credibility of the polling was strongly called into question” in some of the stations where, among other irregularities, “candidate representatives, notably from [Mr. Gbagbo’s party], were prevented from doing their duty” and “physical attacks were recorded” (see Attachment N).

There were also eye-witness accounts and video-taped interviews of individuals from the opposition-controlled northern areas documenting violence, voter suppression, and widespread fear, including the murder of a representative from Mr. Gbagbo’s party and the rape and murder by Mr. Ouattara’s supportersof a woman attempting to vote.

A turnout disparity between the Independent Electoral Commission’s results and the Constitutional Council’s findings reflects evidence of fraudulent ballot-stuffing, which was also reported by eye-witnesses and observers, and as was cited as evidence for the Constitutional Council’s decision to declare Mr. Gbagbo the winner (see Attachment A, p. 4).

The ballot count recorded by the Electoral Commission and later relied upon in testimony to the United Nations Security Council by Secretary-General Special Representative to the Ivory Coast Y.J. Choi (see Attachment O) estimated turnout of 81.1%. But this turnout estimate is more than 10% higher than the Constitutional Council’s estimate of 71.28% (see Attachment A, p. 7). The government points out that numerous on-scene observers, such as the European-funded Convention of Ivorian Civil Society (CSCI), estimated a turnout approximating the Constitutional Council’s calculation (see Attachment M, p. 7), a number reflecting the increase in violence as compared to the first round of the election, when turnout was 83.7% (see Attachment M, p. 7).

This material is distributed by Lanny J. Davis & Asociates LLC and DAVIS-BLOCK LLC on behalf of the Government of Cote d’Ivoire.

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.

The Servitude of the Colonial Pact

Professor Mamadou Koulibaly, Speaker of the Ivorian National Assembly and Professor of Economics, sheds light on the economic devastation caused to the African member states of the CFA (Communauté Financière d'Afrique - French Community of Africa) zone through their continued link to the French currency - the Franc - in the past and today to the euro. In this informative interview with New African's Ruth Tete and Soh Taadhieu, Professor Koulibaly does not mince his words as he calls for a total split and the creation of an independent currency free of colonial baggage.

Could you explain to our readers, what are the principle mechanisms of the CFA Franc Zone?

The CFA franc region represents a state-controlled zone of cooperation with, interestingly, the levers of control based in Paris, from where the priority is the interests of France. The satellite states that are members of this zone are dispersed in West and Central Africa. The operational logic driving the functioning of this zone brings to mind a similarity with the way the Eastern European states were linked during the Cold War to the former Soviet bloc through the Warsaw Pact.

The principals of monetary cooperation between France and the member states of the CFA zone were formulated in the 1960s in a colonial pact which was reviewed in the monetary cooperation convention of 23 November 1972 between the member states of the Banque des Etats de l'Afrique Centrale (BEAC) (Bank of Central African States) and the French Republic on one hand, as well as in the cooperation agreement of 4 December 1973 between the member states of the Union Monétaire Ouest-Africaine (UMOA) (or the Monetary Union of West African States) and the French Republic on the other hand.

Just before France conceded to African demands for independence in the 1960s, it carefully organized its former colonies in a system of compulsory solidarity which consisted of obliging the African states to put 65% of their foreign currency reserves into the French Treasury, based on the convertibility, at a rigid exchange rate of the CFA - a currency France had created for them.

Although the administration of the CFA currency was entrusted to a common central bank (comprising BCEAO and BEAC), these so-called African banks were only African in name. The reality is that they have no clout and are nothing more than huge bureaucratic institutions which have no monetary policies of their own. They exist to give the CFA countries the impression that they too are masters of their own monetary destiny, which in reality is not the case. The African CFA zone countries continue to this day, to perpetuate a system put in place by their former colonial master.

How would you describe the balance-sheet of the CFA countries since

their membership of this monetary union?

The CFA franc zone has engendered a long-running debate which continues to raise new arguments among economists. In a general sense, what we should not forget, as we go along, is the privileged relations between France and the CFA countries which have conferred on France huge advantages in terms of market outlets for its goods and services. For the CFA countries, their monetary balance sheet, when viewed beyond the figures and statistics occasionally issued via official reports, is one of a long history of perpetual secrecy by France whose sole concern is to preserve its interests.

For instance, the foreign reserves of the CFA African states are deposited in the French Treasury, but no African country is capable of telling you exactly how much of this hard-earned foreign reserves belong to them. Only France has privilege to that information. Yet, these funds which are deposited in the French Treasury in the so-called Operations Accounts are expected to generate interest whenever the amounts register a surplus in relation to the import financing needs of the African countries concerned. These Operations Accounts, according to the monetary cooperation agreements signed between France and the CFA zone countries, are supposedly expected to have unlimited overdrafts, contrary to all the basic rules of the French public accounting procedures.

However, the French authorities have carefully tried to conceal in the African central bank statutes, measures that are sometimes preventative, aimed at avoiding a situation whereby the Operations Accounts become indebted on a permanent basis. Critical matters concerning the operations of the CFA franc are kept top secret and only French Treasury officials are in a position to give the exact amount of money belonging to the CFA zone countries held in the Operations Accounts. Only these French officials can give the level of remuneration as well as the cost of maintaining these accounts. The whole system is shrouded in secrecy; it is opaque and authoritarian.

The CFA zone economies are very vulnerable. The effects caused by the operational mechanism of the CFA franc are asymmetric: The most wasteful countries in the zone are able to use the foreign reserves of other more economically prudent countries. The monetary solidarity of the CFA zone countries benefits the richest of them and encourages the exploitation of the poorest in the zone. The existence of a stable and unified monetary system has not led to the emergence of an efficient and major banking/financial system in the CFA countries. Of the 107 banks within the CFA countries, 42 were declared bankrupt in 1990. The banking networks which were constituted thereafter are strongly dependent on the banks in metropolitan France.

France encourages the CFA countries to live far beyond their means. What difference can you see between Gabon, a member state of the CFA zone whose foreign currency reserves are deposited in France, and Ghana which has its own currency and is not a member of the CFA zone? Or between Cameroon and Kenya? Benin and Tunisia? The balance-sheet that you asked about can be found in the answers to these comparisons.

The CFA zone has been in existence for more than 60 years. How do you explain this long period, despite the negative effects that it continues to produce in the CFA countries?

A: This long period, in my view, is due to the influence of France over the Francophone African countries, although those in favour of the CFA franc use the following arguments to justify their support: monetary guarantee which generates an influx of capital; austerity measures in monetary policy which limit the risks of inflation and maintain an equilibrium in the external balance and credibility of the CFA franc.

However, the CFA proponents pretend not to see the political and financial repression which successive French presidents have exercised over their African counterparts who have tried to leave the CFA zone system. We are witnesses to a number of repressive measures aimed at preventing the growth of any ideas of emancipation from the CFA: the recent crisis relating to uranium in Niger, gold in Mali, petrol in Chad, raw materials and the transfer of public utility shares in Côte d'Ivoire and the crises in Rwanda, DRCongo and Senegal, all to protect French interests.

When Senegal recently announced oil discoveries in Saint Louis, the country turned to Venezuela to help in its exploration instead of France. This was seen in Paris as betraying the cooperation agreements that tie all CFA countries and their resources exclusively to France. Added to this is the nature of the African elites and the political class who, during this long period, have continued to pretend that they don't have the necessary expertise to manage their own currency in a responsible and efficient manner just like Western experts and their Asian counterparts do.

Instead, they are content to see African states being reduced to the level of taxpayers for France (remember the 65% of hard currencies that the 14 CFA zone states are obliged to deposit yearly in the French Treasury!). Yet, our people neither have French nationality nor access to the public goods and services made available to other French taxpayers. All this has led to a situation that can only be described as voluntary servitude which has conditioned the population and other economic operators into believing that there is no chance for survival outside the Francophone system.

This is a pity because this belief is totally false. The world out there is vast and open; it only requires that one develops a keen desire to integrate into it freely and responsibly through trade and not through foreign aid which has the effect of conditioning the mind and transforming people into beggars. Everyday, globalization creates millions of opportunities which do not profit us because we are trapped in inefficient systems.

A meeting of finance ministers from the CFA zone was held in Paris on 14 October 2007. This meeting is traditionally held in prelude to the autumn meeting of the World Bank and IMF. You were at one point the minister of finance of Côte d'Ivoire, and in that capacity you perhaps participated in these meetings. Many Africans say nothing good ever comes out of these gatherings to benefit the African people. What is the case exactly?

No, I never participated in those meetings when I was the minister of finance. But most the CFA countries are practically weak and on a drip. They can therefore not bring their weight to bear on decisions taken during the finance ministers' meetings. It is, therefore, reasonable to wonder why they keep participating in such meetings in which they don't even have an effective voice. These countries are in effect saying they are irresponsible and convinced that France can do all for them and do better than the rest of the world. Our countries prefer to take things easy even if that means endangering employment, revenues, savings and private investments. We are, in fact, accomplices to the poverty trap in which we find ourselves.

Could you cite at least three major reasons which would justify why African states should break away from the CFA franc?

To begin with, the CFA franc is financially repressive, unfair, and morally indefensible. It has created a zone of state corruption. During elections in France the CFA zone countries are constantly solicited to provide private funding to French politicians, an obligation that has no justification whatsoever. This has always been a requirement from successive French presidents. The fact that the CFA countries provide their French counterparts with bags loaded with money at every election has been a source of numerous conflicts and provides room for other forms of corruption.

It's these connections that continue to perpetuate French monopoly in the CFA countries, despite the globalization of the market. Under the pretext of assisting poor countries with French tax-payers' money, it is in fact the political class of France and Africa who enrich themselves in an illicit manner and this alone is justification enough to break up and reject the CFA zone system. Economic and financial liberalization cannot happen when there is a fixed exchange rate, and an artificially maintained zone of economic influence. In fact, the emergence of tensions within the international monetary system and the financial crisis of this last few years incline one to think that the choice of the exchange regime is dependent on the type of commitments undertaken by monetary authorities.

And yet, the voluntary limitation of the CFA countries regarding monetary policy freedom has led to increased official worries about a possible devaluation of the CFA franc.

After the break with the CFA franc that you advocate, what monetary future do you propose for the African countries?

Given the stakes involved, the reforms that are called for must be in the financial and monetary spheres. A currency must resolutely be at the service of the economy. It must adapt to the prevailing contexts. To that effect, efforts must be made to enable countries to protect themselves against asymmetric shocks, improve macroeconomic convergence and adjustment as well as to be able to finance their development. t has become vital today for the CFA franc to acquire its own existence, free of colonial stranglehold. It is high time that the African countries assumed the consequences of freely pursuing macroeconomic policy without allowing France to direct it for them. There is no magic in that. It suffices that we make a decision to freely assume our own policies and to be responsible. Freedom only has meaning when it is accompanied by responsibility.

After the break, the ex-CFA zone must construct its own system based on simple principles. These include:

* establishing direct access to international markets without having to pass through a tutor (read France); and

* without a monetary guide (read France);

* establish a simple fiscal system and not complicated tax codes that are incomprehensible; have flexible exchange rates vis-à -vis major currencies.

In order to achieve this, the CFA countries have two options:

* Either they create independent national currencies with flexible parity as was the case with the European Union national currencies before the advent of the euro. This option can only prosper if the banks are free and private, and the central banks independent to put in place credible monetary policies.

* The second option is that African countries can get together and create a unique and common currency with a unique and common central bank for all, independent of politicians and a single economic policy (monetary and budgetary).

Whatever the option that may be adopted by the African countries, the states must be democratic and clearly spell out the ownership rights of their populations, and then allow the people the freedom to decide whether they wish to mortgage these rights. Everything starts with the rights of ownership accorded to the people, rights which would then free people from poverty. After that, free trade will do the rest.

In 2005, you published a book entitled, "Les Servitude du Pacte Colonial” (The Servitude of the Colonial Pact). Could you briefly explain what this book is about and in particular about the message it conveys?

The purpose of the book was to put at the disposal of the public the "colonial pact" which is the foundation on which the Franco-African Cooperation Agreements are built. It's a hereditary model organized by Gaullist France on the eve of the independence of Francophone African states, aimed at indirectly controlling the management of the Francophone countries. The book aims to expose the texts which are used to organize, French state interventions despite the theoretical end of colonialism in the 1960s. According to this Colonial Pact, when Francophone African presidents came to power, die were expected, to manage their countries as though on behalf of Paris.

Independence was thus nothing more than the transfer of the competence of the Elysée Palace (the seat of French presidential power) to the African presidents who owed allegiance to a master based in Paris, and not to their own people over whom they govern. Paris, dictated the policies that they must adopt. The book shows how the Defense Agreements are in reality commercial agreements protected by Paris which obliges Francophone African states to maintain French military bases on their soil, and these soldiers are ready to intervene in any Francophone African state to chase recalcitrant leaders and replace them with more docile ones.

In this book, you will discover that France has monopolistic ownership of all raw materials in the Francophone African countries, both in the soil and on land. After reading the Colonial Pact, the public would then understand how France organized self-serving measures to ensure that it retained all colonial prerogatives after giving independence to the African states. In reality, France may have physically withdrawn the colonial administration of the time, but through these Colonial Pacts, it continues to be omnipresent in Francophone Africa and still enjoys all the colonial advantages of yesteryear.

The true independence of the CFA zone countries has, in reality, been confiscated by Paris. A key lesson is that we must collectively denounce this Colonial Pact. Every African, whether Francophone or not, must be morally shocked. When President Sarkozy of France was in Dakar, he acknowledged that colonisation was a crime against humanity but he refused to repent for it. Africans must denounce all agreements and systems that distance Africa from economic markets. The Colonial Pact is a permanent betrayal of African ownership - it is full of diplomatic witchcraft.

Has the book achieved anything?

I suppose yes. I wanted to share my convictions with a large number of Africans and friends of Africa. That they may be in a better position to weigh the dangerous effects of the Colonial Pact, the state-controlled leadership and principally the administration of the economy as a source of poverty in our countries; In Africa we do not need alms, our problem is not the lack of money. My conviction is that we must first of all clearly state our ownership rights over our own land and the resources in our soil which were taken away by the colonialists when they conquered our countries, and still being taken away through the Colonial Pact.

Lastly, I wanted, via the book, to let the world accept that Africa urgently needed individual liberty, limited government, free markets, open society and peace which can only result from economic and political freedom.

Is peace a possibility for Cote D’Ivoire in 2011?

In Africa, peace, rebecca sargent's posts, violence on January 3, 2011 at 2:30 am
This past month or so has been a particularly stressful one for me. I have been living in Abidjan, Cote D’Ivoire for most of the past year and have watched as the country has been sinking deeper and deeper into violence and intense propaganda. Sadly, I’ve found I no longer believe a word I read in both local and international news, as I have read “news” that is in direct contrast to what I have seen and heard with my own eyes and ears. The stories seem to be escalating the situation further and further, and I’m finding myself extremely frustrated that everything seems to be so one-sided (either pro-Ouattara or pro-Gbagbo). It hurts me to think I have posted articles and comments that are seen as even slightly defensive of Gbagbo in the international sphere in an effort to elicit some form of balance in the reporting, as I have been (and still am) heavily critical of him. It hurts to try and have discussions with locals within Abidjan in defense of Ouattara, to try and bring reason to fervent Gbagbo supporters. I hate playing the “other-side” game in response to one-sided arguments, but I think it’s important to try to play devil’s advocate with those die-hard supporters who only paint one side of the story. Frankly, I wish both presidents would move on and allow a fresh batch of politicians that aren’t tainted with past violence to step forward to take the country to a more peaceful future, but this is not reality.

I was last here in 2004, during the previous civil war and saw the violence as it spread and resulted in the intense hatred of all things foreign. It was sometimes scary and devastating to watch. I heard many horrific personal stories from friends of the violence they experienced at the time. Despite this, I was ecstatic at the opportunity to come back here. I love this country. I love the mostly kind and friendly people I have encountered here. I love the rich culture and delicious food. I love the countryside, the beaches and the thick, lush forest. I love the way of life here, barring the corruption that sometimes makes things difficult. It’s a beautiful country with a lot of really amazing treasures.

The November 28th presidential elections resulted in a political crisis, with two different entities announcing two different results. Both Presidents were sworn in, in separate ceremonies and the country has been awash with reports of violence and violent-rhetoric ever since. The crisis didn’t really begin here; it has been festering for many years but it is now looking likely to outbreak into civil war, political assassinations or exiles and further inter-group hatreds.

Though I have been writing detailed personal notes throughout this situation, I must admit that I have been fearful to publish anything on the situation in the past few weeks. After writing a critique of the nearly unanimous support for Ouattara (the opposition) demonstrated by the international community on this site and several posts on the subject in a few other forums, I received some rather scary death threats from one person and many comments that broke my non-violence, non-discrimination, non-racism policy. I decided to take a bit of a break from posting on the subject.

The results of the elections sadly, is no longer even really relevant to the discussion. Whoever “really” won did so in a circumstance of intimidation and irregularity that can be attributed to both parties, depending on where one is situated in the country (with Gbagbo-supporters being intimidated mostly in the north, and Ouattara supporters being intimidated mostly in the south). The events that have happened since have only worsened the possibility of the “truth” being told. Propaganda has run wild, with increasingly violent-rhetoric being spread among both state and opposition media. Any probing of results or investigation at this point will be lost behind propaganda I’m afraid.

There has been acts of violence and the country is at real threat of returning to civil war, which it never fully recovered from in the first place. At least 150 are confirmed dead, and probably somewhere closer to several hundred. Dozens (and perhaps many more) have disappeared, and hundreds are said to have been arrested. Many thousands have fled to neighbouring Liberia, escaping violence in the south perpetrated mostly by Gbagbo-supporters, alleged mercenaries and the security forces; and violence in the north perpetrated mostly by Ouattara supporters and the Forces Nouvelles. Further investigation is needed to assess the refugees and their experiences of violence.

Some 120,000 Liberian refugees reside within Cote D’Ivoire, thousands of Burkinabes, and other West Africa refugees; and there have been hints from some sources within the UNHCR that suggest that many of those flooding out of Cote D’Ivoire are these long-term refugees who have long worked the system. They are appearing heavily at the UNHCR border office rather than being evenly distributed throughout Liberia or other neighbouring countries (this is taken from both personal communications with officials and comments made to Chris Blattman from a UNHCR official). I do however believe, that even if these refugees “know how to work the system”, they are still experiencing violence, as foreigners are often scapegoated during domestic troubles.

Regardless of who these refugees are and where they came from, they must be assisted and resettled with caution. The increase of people into Liberia, itself prone to instability, leaves an already burdened population with more mouths to feed and endangers peace in that country as well. Armed groups have been cited crossing borders to intimidate refugee populations and take the conflict to new populations as they do. Instability in the region could easily pass borders if things in Cote D’Ivoire worsen.

Besides the refugees, there are many foreigners with money who have decided to return to their home countries by more planned means (via plane with actual luggage) as their embassies sent messages urging them to quit the country before more violence came. This has had some effect on the local economy, although it appears many major business owners will be staying and instead sending their wives and families back home.

Nearly half the population was already unemployed before the conflict began and the vast majority lives on little more than $1 a day. Those that work often support large numbers of people on their meager salaries. Many workers have been laid off since the crisis, and the prices of food staples has doubled. As the population becomes more food and job insecure, so the risk for conflict increases. Strikes called by Ouattara’s camp affected some of the services of the buses, gbakas (minbuses) and taxis for a few days, but as most of the population is living day to day, long-term or full out striking is extremely unlikely. Most can simply not afford to take the time off without severe repercussions to themselves and their families.

Rallies have been held and marches planned. Ouattara’s march on the RTI television station ended without real success and resulted in much-expected clashes between security forces and protesters. Despite the violence, Ouattara was calling on his supporters to continue the attempt the following day, again without success. He has since repeatedly warned Gbagbo of imminent consequences should he not back down immediately, though it is difficult to administer consequences when one is backed into hiding and the consequences have yet to be seen. The notorious Ble Goude (Gbagbo’s Youth Minister) has been busy rallying up Gbagbo supporters and spinning them into an angry frenzy, readying them for the moment he can unleash them to try to take the Golf Hotel (where the Ouattara camp is currently residing under UN and Force Nouvelles protection) by force. Two major marches planned by Ble Goude have been canceled the night before they were even begun, allegedly to prevent further violence (though they were called using the extreme violent-rhetoric Goude is famous for).

The local political humour paper Gbich has taken the opportunity openly mock both candidates and their behaviours, much to my enjoyment. However, in the serious papers (both state and opposition); violent, inciting rhetoric makes me skeptical of the veracity of anything printed inside and angered that more peaceful dialogue is not the popular option. Rumours of local media intimidation by Gbagbo forces haven’t stopped most opposition papers from writing, as they can still be found daily in many places around the city. I’ve personally been threatened by a pro-Ouattara supporter, so I know that the intimidation definitely goes both ways, but I can also say that I fear writing anything hyper-critical of either candidate should the situation deteriorate further.

On the streets, during the day time, things are pretty normal. The streets and markets are crowded with people again going about their daily business, though people are still cautiously stocking up on supplies and keeping an eye out for any signs of coming danger. The police in many parts of the city have even returned to using radar to ticket speeders. I’ve found no trouble or signs of blatant violence while traveling throughout the city in the past two weeks, except for roadblocks and neighbourhood patrols in a few districts at night. In fact, on New Years eve, I traveled throughout several districts (including both known pro-Ouattara and pro-Gbagbo districts) and saw drunken partying, fireworks and dancing as if nothing was wrong. I couldn’t sleep that night as the music, cheering and fireworks of those partying around my apartment blared in through my windows.

I have detailed some of the local situation and the underlying tensions that exist in this post. I will discuss in further detail some of the proposed “solutions” to the crisis and the effects I see coming from those in the next post.

n Africa, peace, rebecca sargent's posts, violence on January 3, 2011 at 2:30 am