French and Ivory coast.
Some people posted in an another thread, that they where pissed because people protested against the war in Iraq, but did not protested for others things including the french involvement in Ivory coast.
As i personnaly have some difficulties to see a connection between Ivory coast and Iraq or Rwanda, i decided to make a thread about this subject.
a first exposure of the situation and his dangers :
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/search/article/0,8599,361582,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/search/article/0,8599,361582,00.html</a>;
Since, this article there where a huge civil war, that was temporaly stopped after an agreement who occured in the beginning of 2003. Now Gbagbo do not want of these agreement (the one his governement signed), and his opposed to France.
Here an article about Gbabgo viewed by the Ivorian coast press : <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--309301-,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--309301-,00.html</a>;
So the question : should the french soldiers leave the countries and allow a civil war to occur, or should they stay even if their presence is seen by some poeple as a provocation ?
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
As i personnaly have some difficulties to see a connection between Ivory coast and Iraq or Rwanda, i decided to make a thread about this subject.
a first exposure of the situation and his dangers :
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/search/article/0,8599,361582,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/search/article/0,8599,361582,00.html</a>;
Since, this article there where a huge civil war, that was temporaly stopped after an agreement who occured in the beginning of 2003. Now Gbagbo do not want of these agreement (the one his governement signed), and his opposed to France.
Here an article about Gbabgo viewed by the Ivorian coast press : <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--309301-,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--309301-,00.html</a>;
So the question : should the french soldiers leave the countries and allow a civil war to occur, or should they stay even if their presence is seen by some poeple as a provocation ?
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
Comments
Au revoir <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
In Rwanda, which became part of the French zone of influence along with Burundi and DR Congo/Zaïre after the Belgians (also of checkered record in that department) left, France supported the regime which in 1994, perpetrated genocide on its own population, before falling to the rebels, while the French assist the regime's escape to the then Zaïre.
What I particularly recall from that time are the complaints coming from Paris at the time were that the rebels opposing the genocidal regime were supported by English-speaking Uganda and Tanzania: anything but the Anglophones.
In the current Ivory Coast crisis, France is officially separating between the northern corrupt and bloody rebels who challenge the corrupt and bloody (like practically all other neighbouring countries'), yet internationally recognised regime of Yamasoukro, while attempting to find and promote a compromise agreement between the two sides.
This means France had sent its troops in a sovereign state without waiting for any kind of the UN mandate it demands for other countries' interventions (it did receive a mandate a posteriori, so here the UN functioned as a rubber stamp for French unilateralism), and imposed a Â?negociatedÂ? treaty which would give the rebels key government ministries (defence and interior). So in practice, while claiming to either neutrality or support of the Â?electedÂ? government (according to the Time article) it actually supports the rebels, enabling them to share in power.
Since other main players in international dipolmacy prefer minimal stability to be kept in the area, and no one but France is willing to interfere, they let France set the political weather in what many consider France's own backyard (in the same way the Caribbeans and Latin America are the USA's backyard).
But many Africans begin to lose patience with that, witness the recent anti-French riots and vandalism.
So here we have a clear case of neo-colonial behaviour and a unilateralist one to boot, as France went inwithout any intenrational mandate �at the demand of the locals� like Stalin in 1940 Lithuania or Assad (père et fils) in present-day Lebanon.
While I'm not protesting French interference in Africa (j'ai d'autres chats Ã* fouetter) I find France's own moralist posturing about Â?international legitimacyÂ? and Â?human rightsÂ? in other world arenas, lacking in credibility.
Basically, France is resenting its being a secondary league power and tries to stick it up to the Ricains in the way it taunted the Rosbifs a century ago (Fachoda, etcÂ?), and claims to teach morals to the world in a mnner not unlike the USA's own current Â?Good vs. EvilÂ? trip, excepts for the use of more multi-syllabic words.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
There are so many nations collapsing in that region, this is an opportunity to restore some semblance of law and order. Get this one before it gets more out of hand, and maybe it can be a springboard for bringing peace to Liberia and others.
PS: if the UN refuses to help, then I guess it is France's (unfair) burden to help however it can.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
The French are using all sorts of pretexts to further their real goal. They don't really believe that the inspections are working, that is an absurd position. They don't really believe that Saddam Hussein is cooperating. They don't really believe that wars should be the province of the security council, that would have negative consequences for their protection of their worldwide holdings particularly in formerly colonial states. They don't really believe that war should always be the last resort. They don't really believe that financial interests cannot justify military action.
What the French govt really think is what Jean-Pierre Raffarin let slip when he said, "France is back on the international scene...Now we can make France's voice heard."
That's what it is really about. And so you see they have made their points. They have stood up to the US and been applauded. They have given the illusion of having stood up for France and stood against the evil United State.
Now they will take the typical French exit and leave Germany holding the bag. Of course, it is hard to be sympathetic to Schroeder since he basically went back on his promise not to politicize the war for his own benefit with his anti-American remarks and anti-war rhetoric which basically saved his election campaign. Beyond which he has been unable to get hte German economy out of the shitter and so the Germans are ready to beat the living puss out of him.
Anyway, now the French will capitulate, now that they have done their typical diplomatic masturbation and jizzed all over the UN. They have made their great moral stand, now they'll retreat and go along so that they don't lose out on the spOILs of war. And so that their stand isn't undercut by being ignored by the US and friends who go on and do something else. And so that the UN doesn't have to face its impotency which is not a pleasant prospect for a country which enjoys more parity in the UN with important countries like Russia, China, the US and Britian than they would anywhere else.
They'll find another pretext. Perhaps they'll use the use of troops in a UN proposal to engineer a better case for Iraqi non-compliance. Perhaps they'll spin it that they had to go along with the US because UN support will legitimize the war and thereby stifle Arab opposition and any resulting terrorism. Perhaps they'll claim that they are making a bold move for democracy and the long term hopes for peace in Iraq. Whatever. They'll flip flop and go along and toss in a bit militarily and participate in the postwar govt. It is February 16th. They have six weeks to make the flip before the war starts. Watch it.
Of course, the US and the Council of the Shrubbery will seethe but will go along because at the end of the game the French will have wandered over to the same position as the US and they will share in the costs of the operation and they will facilitate UN legitimacy which is at the least very important for Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia and somewhat politically important even to Shrubbery.
<strong>France has been maintaining a control over most of its former African colonies. To illustrate this, after the Â? supeceded the French franc, the last French currency is now the CFA franc (legal tender inseveral of those countries) guaranteed by Paris.
In Rwanda, which became part of the French zone of influence along with Burundi and DR Congo/Zaïre after the Belgians (also of checkered record in that department) left, France supported the regime which in 1994, perpetrated genocide on its own population, before falling to the rebels, while the French assist the regime's escape to the then Zaïre.
What I particularly recall from that time are the complaints coming from Paris at the time were that the rebels opposing the genocidal regime were supported by English-speaking Uganda and Tanzania: anything but the Anglophones.
In the current Ivory Coast crisis, France is officially separating between the northern corrupt and bloody rebels who challenge the corrupt and bloody (like practically all other neighbouring countries'), yet internationally recognised regime of Yamasoukro, while attempting to find and promote a compromise agreement between the two sides.
This means France had sent its troops in a sovereign state without waiting for any kind of the UN mandate it demands for other countries' interventions (it did receive a mandate a posteriori, so here the UN functioned as a rubber stamp for French unilateralism), and imposed a Â?negociatedÂ? treaty which would give the rebels key government ministries (defence and interior). So in practice, while claiming to either neutrality or support of the Â?electedÂ? government (according to the Time article) it actually supports the rebels, enabling them to share in power.
Since other main players in international dipolmacy prefer minimal stability to be kept in the area, and no one but France is willing to interfere, they let France set the political weather in what many consider France's own backyard (in the same way the Caribbeans and Latin America are the USA's backyard).
But many Africans begin to lose patience with that, witness the recent anti-French riots and vandalism.
So here we have a clear case of neo-colonial behaviour and a unilateralist one to boot, as France went inwithout any intenrational mandate �at the demand of the locals� like Stalin in 1940 Lithuania or Assad (père et fils) in present-day Lebanon.
While I'm not protesting French interference in Africa (j'ai d'autres chats Ã* fouetter) I find France's own moralist posturing about Â?international legitimacyÂ? and Â?human rightsÂ? in other world arenas, lacking in credibility.
Basically, France is resenting its being a secondary league power and tries to stick it up to the Ricains in the way it taunted the Rosbifs a century ago (Fachoda, etcÂ?), and claims to teach morals to the world in a mnner not unlike the USA's own current Â?Good vs. EvilÂ? trip, excepts for the use of more multi-syllabic words.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK , you disaproove this management : so what do you suggest ? I will be pleased to know your suggestions ? Personally i am not smart enough to make any better suggestions about the management of this crisis.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
One question that does arise: Where are all the holier-than-thou anti-war protesters? Again, a perfect example of the anto-war movement being nothing more than a very thinly veiled anti-US movement.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>. The topic of hypocrisy likewise applies to the French government which has achieved levels of bullshit that even we Americans have been unable to reach.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both of these two countries involved themselves in foreign policies, and thus achieved incredible level of bullshit (by your own words). I don't know who will the winner in this aera. I think that both will be the looser. Anyway it's so easy to judge the management of governements retrospectively.
[quote]The French are using all sorts of pretexts to further their real goal. They don't really believe that the inspections are working, that is an absurd position. They don't really believe that Saddam Hussein is cooperating. They don't really believe that wars should be the province of the security council, that would have negative consequences for their protection of their worldwide holdings particularly in formerly colonial states. They don't really believe that war should always be the last resort. They don't really believe that financial interests cannot justify military action. <hr></blockquote>
I think that there is a real chance even small that Iraq comply with the UN rules. They have no choice, the pressure for war that made US is so huge, that try to fool UN will be a suicide.
If Iraq commit this suicide, thus at the eye of a more important part of the world opinion (because there will be always an opposition to this war), if Iraq will be attacked it will be his fault. A large coalition at the color of UNO leaded by US will kick the ass of Saddam. US will have his oil, France can save also his oil interest, Iraq will be no longer a threat for his neighboors, and arabs countries will only hate occidental way sligty more (we cannot dream for a better result in this aera).
<strong>
OK , you disaproove this management : so what do you suggest ? I will be pleased to know your suggestions ? Personally i am not smart enough to make any better suggestions about the management of this crisis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While I'm hardly a specialist on crisis management, I'd suggest to use the lessons learned form how situations were stabilised in other areas recently stricken by civil war, like say, Bosnia. Possibly adding involvement of countries with no interest in the area (India? Finland?) to balance those with a record of minding the locals' business.
As I recall, that avenue wasn't quite xplored before France decided to take matters into its own hand.
Other than that, we all recall the heavy-handed way the US used to handle Latin America up till the late 80s culminating with the forcible removal of that thug Noriega (not a bad thing in itself), the situation has improved in many ways there, with a certain disengagement of the US (the ?big stick? isn't used as often as it used to). Alas this can't be said of the French influence in Africa (or sadly, most of Africa; in certain places, like Zimbabwe, it has deteriorated, but that's for another discussion).
<strong>
While I'm hardly a specialist on crisis management, I'd suggest to use the lessons learned form how situations were stabilised in other areas recently stricken by civil war, like say, Bosnia. Possibly adding involvement of countries with no interest in the area (India? Finland?) to balance those with a record of minding the locals' business.
As I recall, that avenue wasn't quite xplored before France decided to take matters into its own hand.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it's possible, but France sent his troop in emergency merely to protect his own expatried citizens. Now if UN want to send troops there, to replace the french, it will be welcome at my eyes, but i doubt that many volunteers are ready for the job : who will want to pay for this if they have no interest in the aera ?
On another side, you are right : the relations between France and her former colonies are strange and based upon a relation father/ ex rebel son, and not like a relation between two adults countries. But this is a another debate.
The point of this thread is that i have some problems to make a link between ivory coast ( a local crisis) with a big world crisis (with higher risk of globalisation of the conflict).
While there probably isn't any active collaboration between Iraq and the confederation of terrorist groups known as al-Qa'eda, they both challenge the political, economic, and cultural tendency in presence since the end of the Cold War (which, despite all its faults, is still preferrable in my opinion to whatever propsitions these two and their friinds have in store).
So, contrary to the belief recently expressed by the Swiss social critic M. Jean Ziegler, it is that challenge, not some ?American hegemonism?, which is a violent attack against the values of the Enlightenment philosophers and of the two revolutions they inspired: that of 1776 and that of 1789.
And lest we forget, Mr. Clinton had spent less time in 2000 than Mr. Bush in 2002/3, going back and forth to the UN asking for validation, before striking a rogue state. So while Mr. Bush can be called many things ?unilateralist? he is not, and certainly less of a ?hegemonist? than his predecessor.
<strong>Since a linkage to the Iraq situation has been mentioned, one notes with concern that both Usama bin Laden as well as Saddam Hussain are probably quite satisfied with how currently divided is the opposition: not only between developed and non-developed countries, but within the developed West itself.
While there probably isn't any active collaboration between Iraq and the confederation of terrorist groups known as al-Qa'eda, they both challenge the political, economic, and cultural tendency in presence since the end of the Cold War (which, despite all its faults, is still preferrable in my opinion to whatever propsitions these two and their friinds have in store).
r.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you are right, but Bin Laden will be certainly happy if a war against Iraq occur : the more US become unpopular the happier he will be (if he is still alive, but that's an another storie, not so important : dead or alive Al Quaeda is still alive, and still a threat).
[quote] And lest we forget, Mr. Clinton had spent less time in 2000 than Mr. Bush in 2002/3, going back and forth to the UN asking for validation, before striking a rogue state. So while Mr. Bush can be called many things ?unilateralist? he is not, and certainly less of a ?hegemonist? than his predecessor. <hr></blockquote>
Certainly ( i did not followed Clinton policies enough to bother make a comment) but the situation is different : a war against Iraq, need more an approval than minor strikes or retaliations against rogues countries. Did we ever see major protestation against Clinton ? : i guess not.
<a href="http://nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16FRIE.html"; target="_blank">http://nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16FRIE.html</a>;
oops, forgot the subscription thing. A snippet:
[quote]The new world system is also bipolar, but instead of being divided between East and West, it is divided between the World of Order and the World of Disorder. The World of Order is built on four pillars: the U.S., E.U.-Russia, India and China, along with all the smaller powers around them. The World of Disorder comprises failed states (such as Liberia), rogue states (Iraq and North Korea), messy states ? states that are too big to fail but too messy to work (Pakistan, Colombia, Indonesia, many Arab and African states) ? and finally the terrorist and mafia networks that feed off the World of Disorder.<hr></blockquote>
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
Yes it's possible, but France sent his troop in emergency merely to protect his own expatried citizens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's only the first part of the story (the USA had also dispatched troops to evacuate its citizens), but it aslso sent additional troops to separate the government and rebel forces. It then pushed for a settlement between the faction essentially garnering a position in power for the insurgents.
[quote]<strong>Now if UN want to send troops there, to replace the french, it will be welcome at my eyes, but i doubt that many volunteers are ready for the job : who will want to pay for this if they have no interest in the aera ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is for that very reason that the international community had decided to rubber-stamp France's unilateral initiative.
Had the USA adopted the stance of sticking it to the French as a matter of priciple, they'd have certainly blocked it, and consequneces be damned. They didn't, which shows maturity, and dare I say, culture and sophistication on their part.
[quote]<strong>On another side, you are right : the relations between France and her former colonies are strange and based upon a relation father/ ex rebel son, and not like a relation between two adults countries. But this is a another debate.
The point of this thread is that i have some problems to make a link between ivory coast ( a local crisis) with a big world crisis (with higher risk of globalisation of the conflict).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose the only link here (at least form my vantage point) is about the inconsistency of the French official discourse: adamantly demanding to wait for a concerted international mandate before one military initiative dealing with an emergency, but not before the other.
Could you elaborate on the ?higher risk of globalisation of the conflict?, I have difficulty to follow.
Thank you.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
If you run down what Clinton would have done given the same circumstances and world events you would have had the same results pretty much. ICC, Kyoto, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc. Maybe not on steel and lumber but thats more a govt issue than a populist issue. Only thing is Clinton would have talked the same game as the Europeans and smiled with them while doing what was in the best interests of the US anyway.
<strong>Immanuel, do you read Tom Friedman often?
<a href="http://nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16FRIE.html"; target="_blank">http://nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16FRIE.html</a>;
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will be interested to be the little mouse watching Tom Friedman explaining to the Chinese leaders, how to see this world.
<strong>
Yes, you are right, but Bin Laden will be certainly happy if a war against Iraq occur : the more US become unpopular the happier he will be (if he is still alive, but that's an another storie, not so important : dead or alive Al Quaeda is still alive, and still a threat).</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said previolusly in another thread, my main concern with a future US large scale military action in Iraq, is that it might acvtually provide the terrorists with what they crave for.
I.G.: «And lest we forget, Mr. Clinton had spent less time in 2000 than Mr. Bush in 2002/3, going back and forth to the UN asking for validation, before striking a rogue state. So while Mr. Bush can be called many things ?unilateralist? he is not, and certainly less of a ?hegemonist? than his predecessor.»
[quote]<strong>Certainly ( i did not followed Clinton policies enough to bother make a comment) but the situation is different : a war against Iraq, need more an approval than minor strikes or retaliations against rogues countries. Did we ever see major protestation against Clinton ? : i guess not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There were some minor protests and complaints emanating from the same political circles as today's ?anti-war?, but also, and that's an important detail from some US circles connected to the current administration, who then leaned toward isloationism, at the time when he initiated the attack on Serbia, and that was more than just a minor strike.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Thank you.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ][/QB][/QUOTE]
No countries, will face US in a war, so the risk is not a globalisation like WW1 or WW2 (even if Saddam will try to strike Israel, but he will not succeed this time due to a much better defense against missiles).
The risk is an explosion of terrorism against occident all around the world. Even if many muslims peoples did not love Saddam, they do not like either the occident and his leader US. They will see, the defeat of an arab like countrie as some sort of humiliation (feeling based upon psychologic features rather than pure logic). This Humiliation will lead a very small fraction of the arab world to enter in the Al Queada network. An al Quaeda network with great supports of a large % of the population secretly.
<strong>Immanuel, do you read Tom Friedman often?
<a href="http://nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16FRIE.html"; target="_blank">Linked article</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not familiar with his work.
[quote]<strong>oops, forgot the subscription thing. A snippet:
?The new world system is also bipolar, but instead of being divided between East and West, it is divided between the World of Order and the World of Disorder. The World of Order is built on four pillars: the U.S., E.U.-Russia, India and China, along with all the smaller powers around them. The World of Disorder comprises failed states (such as Liberia), rogue states (Iraq and North Korea), messy states ? states that are too big to fail but too messy to work (Pakistan, Colombia, Indonesia, many Arab and African states) ? and finally the terrorist and mafia networks that feed off the World of Disorder.?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting, I will read more of it later.
As a general comment, I tend to distrust the faction whose banner is order as well as the faction whose banner is disorder. Yet it is no mystery with which faction I'm siding in the given non-ideal reality of our world.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
he initiated the attack on Serbia, and that was more than just a minor strike.
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rigth, but at this time it's the europeans who asked Clinton to interfere in the name of nato. And the goal was only to remove Serbia from Kosovo : the NATO did not invade Serbia : it looks more like the first gulf war.
I am nearly sure if Saddam tried to invade an another countrie that all europeans countries will vote for a war immediatly.
Thank you.»
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
No countries, will face US in a war, so the risk is not a globalisation like WW1 or WW2 (even if Saddam will try to strike Israel, but he will not succeed this time due to a much better defense against missiles).
The risk is an explosion of terrorism against occident all around the world. Even if many muslims peoples did not love Saddam, they do not like either the occident and his leader US. They will see, the defeat of an arab like countrie as some sort of humiliation (feeling based upon psychologic features rather than pure logic). This Humiliation will lead a very small fraction of the arab world to enter in the Al Queada network. An al Quaeda network with great supports of a large % of the population secretly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see now.
A long large-scale war in Iraq isn't likely to spread to the rest of the World or even to the rest of the Middle-East, but there's the risk it will fuel support for the terrorist organistations, and for terrorism as a course of action.
However, the kind of approach shown by the Security Council members currently stalling action against Iraq is akin to letting the Iraqi regime keep whatever it's been doing since the end of operation ?Desert Storm?, which is even worse.
While I'm aware of the risks, aside from pointing to precedents on whose lessons one could draw from, I'm not about to provide desktop-side coaching as to how actually dispose of Saddam's threat (the necessity of such disposing being inconctestable).