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.

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.

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.

Rawlings calls for a peaceful approach to the Ivorian crisis

| Monday, December 27, 2010

Former President Jerry John Rawlings has reiterated its call for an extreme restraint in the management of he crisis in Cote d 'Ivoire. In a message released Thursday, three days after he called for restraint and aturity on the part of all actors in the crisis, President Rawlings said the situation in Ivory Coast was not a imple electoral conflict, but a tangle of ethnic and political complexities that must be handled with tact and iplomacy rather than by open allusions to the use of force.

The former president said that the disputed results clearly indicate that the Ivory Coast is sharply divided on ethnic lines, a fact which should be concerned stakeholders such as ECOWAS, the AU and the UN at the time, they exploring options to resolve the impasse. "The two men at the center of the conflict have indicated their willingness to accept a recount or re-verification of results by neutral observers. Is there a hidden reason for not wanting to accept the offer made by both parties? "It is also important that we do not rush into any kind of intervention force. This does not guarantee a final resolution of the crisis and may actually exacerbate an already volatile situation that could result in a complete civil war with disastrous effects on the populations of entire sub-region.

"Attempts to gather support for military intervention were unfounded and instead expose the hypocrisy of the UN, ECOWAS and the AU. "The most outrageous election results took place without intervention. How can we justify an intervention in this case, when the results are so tight and divided along ethnic lines? Let us explore all options available to peace rather than military intervention, which can not reach a peaceful political transition in Côte d'Ivoire. "The situation is certainly an embarrassment to Africa, but equally disturbing is the fact that international media have chosen to overlook many things.

Reports of some major election observers condemned the conduct of elections in several parts of the country have been totally ignored by the international media. "In some regions the number of votes cast is greater than the total number of voters. In one region, there are 159,788 votes to 48,400 votes. This, added to the fact that in some areas, the staff of the electoral commission and some election officials were not allowed to control the process, calls for a proper investigation is urgently conducted. "There are so many crucial questions unanswered. The details of the report of the envoy of the African Union, President Thabo Mbeki, should be made public to help better understand the nature of the situation. "It is also imperative that ECOWAS convened an emergency meeting to urge both sides to the center of the crisis as well as representatives of all the observer missions that have covered the election to present their case. This has been done in the past and this will move us a big step in finding the solution. "We must act with care for the good of the people of Ivory Coast who are the real victims of this tragedy. I urge ECOWAS and other international institutions involved in the crisis to analyze the situation with the utmost attention and do everything in their power to resolve in a peaceful manner, "said President Rawlings

France And The Ivory Coast-The Empire Strikes Back

Currently there is an impasse in the runoff of the Presidential elections in the Ivory Coast. The French-linked and funded electoral commission declared that Allasane Outtara won the election while the Constitutional Court declared incumbent President Gbagbo as the victor.

The ‘international community’ of Western countries, NGOS, UN appeasers, and a variety of Francafrique cowards and bed-wetters support Ouattara even though massive fraud has been demonstrated at the polls in the rebel-held North.

This result should be no surprise to anyone. There has been no effective disarmament of the tinpot rebel warlords of the North and no unification of the country in anticipation of the election. A ‘security’ dividing line between the North and the South has been maintained by the occupying French forces pretending to be U.N. troops. Even so-called peacemakers like Blaise Campaore of Burkina Faso pretend to be neutral. Campaore, an unindicted war criminal with a track record of subversion, arms smuggling and war profiteering in Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Cost is somehow portrayed as a neutral.

When arms were being shipped to the West African wars by Chirac and Ghadaffi they arrived at their destinations after having passed through the hands of Campaore and Tandja (who both profited on the deliveries), Ouattara, known as the “Father of the Rebellion” in the Ivory Coast was sustained by operating from a safe haven in Burkina Faso when he was not busy maintaining his close personal ties to Sarkozy’s first wife in Paris. There was no mystery about the Ouattara-Campaore joint effort. Several hours of tapes exist which recorded the meetings called by Campaore in Burkina Faso which garnered support for Ouattara among the Northerners and actively plotted with two French military officers sent from Paris to attempt coups against the Gbagbo Government.

Voter fraud and deception was the rule in the North for over seven years. Even when the AU originally appointed Banny as the interim Prime minister ad Thabo Mbeki as the mediator the frauds persisted. President Mbeki visited the Ivory Coast and invited the warring factions to meet with President Gbagbo in Pretoria where two sets of agreements were made. These Pretoria Agreements achieved a resolution of most of the outstanding issues between the two sides, because President Gbagbo made concessions to achieve these ends. The most important point made in Pretoria was that there would be disarmament of the rebels.

This was, indeed, a requisite of the original cease-fire agreement at Linas-Marcoussis , Article 3 (g) “In order to contribute to restoring security of persons and property throughout the national territory, the Government of National Reconciliation will organise the regrouping and subsequent disarming of all forces. It will ensure that no mercenaries remain within the country’s borders.”

Some links showing the protests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsgZ75aCr2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rKMEAzpFyc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcOmw624suM

Thank you

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.