 |
| Ivory Coast Presidential claimant Alhassan Quattara |
Former Ivorian rebel leaders who now occupy high positions in the Ivorian army,
continue to plunder cocoa and other resources of the country that pays them
hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a UN report.
Commanders ("com-zone") of the New Forces - rebellion
that controlled the north of the country since 2002 – who are now working for
Alassane Ouattara have been found to be involved in the looting of cocoa
harvests and smuggling them. They run their own parallel system of taxation,
according to a report prepared for the
Security Council.
These military leaders who have been identified as having
committed war crimes, were integrated into the regular army but have not abandoned their
predatory economic activities which they have now extended into the entire
Ivorian country.
During the 2011-2012cocoa season, smuggling affected 153,000 tons
out of a total of 1.47 million tons, mainly through Ghana, the report said
citing government figures . The loss was estimated at $ 400
million, say the experts. This, in a way has affected the quality of Ghana’s
cocoa since Ivorians dry their cocoa beans different from the way they are
dried in Ghana, Currently, Ghana.s COCOBOD is dealing with several tones of
contaminated cocoa beans, suspected to have been smuggled from Cote d’Ivoire.
Another example cited: one third of the national production of
450,000 tons of cashew nuts was also a victim of smuggling. The document number shortfall to some $ 130 million for the second
largest producer of cashew nuts.
The UN experts, whose mandate was renewed by the Security Council
last week also cite the appointment to "positions of strategic
leadership" of people like Martin Kouakou Fofié (already under UN sanctions),
Tatenda Ouattara (alias "Wattao"), Hervé Touré ("Vetcho"),
Zakaria Koné and Cherif Ousmane. All have large quantities of
weapons, say the experts.
Despite the arms embargo, the UN experts "can not exclude the
possibility" that these commanders continue to seek to acquire weapons and
other equipment. According to information they cite, weapons had
moved from Côte d'Ivoire to Mali and
neighboring Niger.
“The incidence of sexual and gender-based violence remains of
particular concern,” the report added.
Editorial
LEAVE
CUBAN DOCTORS ALONE
In the wake of the industrial
action by Ghanaian doctors in support of their pay claims, certain senior
personalities in the ruling party have called on the government to dismiss the
striking doctors and replace them with Cuban doctors. The call was initially
made last week by the National Women’s Organiser for the governing National
Democratic Congress, Madam Anita Desooso, who called on government to bring in
more Cuban doctors to break the strike.
Cuban doctors were brought into
this country to supplement the number of doctors in the public sector. It would
be an act of bad faith to place Cuban doctors in a position whereby they would
be seen as a counterbalance to undermine the demand of the doctors.
Cuban doctors in Ghana require
the goodwill of their Ghanaian counterparts in order to work in harmony. Cuban
doctors have come from a country where they respect the rights of workers.
There are many reasons why
Cuban doctors in Ghana should not be used as bogeymen in the course of an
industrial dispute between doctors and government. It is an insult to the
dignity of Cuban doctors to expect that they are some surplus labour force in
their country of origin, who have nothing to do and can therefore be hired as
bootlegs to undermine the struggles of workers in other countries. It is not
advisable if these Cuban doctors, who are here as part of the solidarity action
with Ghanaians should be used as cannon-fodders in the internal struggles of
employees and their employers. They should be shown some respect by
politicians.
They are not going to be here
forever and Ghana must find ways of retaining the professionals that it trains.
The current situation in which doctors and other professionals in Ghana are
regularly going abroad in search of better paid jobs because we treat them
badly here cannot be sustained.
It is not enough to claim that just because doctors have
taken an oath and work as an essential
service, we can treat them anyhow that we like and expect them to “give everything
to God”
The Government may have a case about the legality or
otherwise of the industrial action by doctors. However, the solution is not to
beat our chests and annoy them. Lines of
communication have be open and those institutions that work within the labour
front have to be transparent and work in good faith.
New Minimum Wage
It takes effect from May 1, 2013.
This was contained in a communiqué jointly signed by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Nii Armah Ashietey for government, the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Employers Association (GEA), Mr Alex Frimpong for the President of GEA and General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Mr Kofi Asamoah for Organised labour.
“Any establishment, institution or organisation whose daily minimum wage is below the new National Daily Minimum Wage should adjust its wages upward accordingly,” it said.
It said the committee had recommended that the NDMW should be tax exempt.
The National Tripartite Committee reiterated its commitment to the improvement of incomes and productivity in both the public and private sectors.
National Labour Commission Has
Abdicated Its Right to Sue Doctors
By Sodzi Sodzi-Tettey
News of the decision of the National Labour Commission to
compel doctors through a law suit to call off the current strike action which
it describes as illegal hit me like a bad dream.
Surprisingly had this same NLC decided five weeks ago to
muster both the resources and the courage to sue the Fair Wages and Salaries
Commission (FWSC) in enforcement of its 2011 ruling, there would absolutely
have been no strike action to begin with. Did I not sit in a meeting at which
despite appreciating clear breaches on the part of the FWSC, the NLC whined and
pleaded with the GMA to go ahead and sue the FWSC so that given their lack of
resources, they would only provide secondary support? Showing no commitment to
enforce its original rulings and watching somewhat helplessly until total
breakdown, how does the NLC now find both the courage and the resources to
rather sue the doctors and not the employer or his representative?
Reading through the press report of the NLC’s suit, two
angles immediately come to mind. The first has to do with the fixation of
getting the courts to “compel the doctors to call-off the strike.” Calling off
the strike is easy. What becomes of the drivers of chronic industrial unrest in
Ghana and on the health front in particular? It worries me greatly, that
historically; many Ministers, government officials and heads of agencies that
have a direct responsibility to address problems seem more fixated in strike
actions being called off rather than proactively initiating and sustaining
creative dialogue backed by concrete measures to address identified problems.
Very often, there tends to be a gnawing distance between government officials
and the labor unions. All it has taken has been chaotic breakdown in relations
and then speaking to officials, one gets to appreciate how really little they
know or have a pulse on the tensions that have been boiling for months. This
distance needs to be closed as a matter of urgency!
It is as if everyone waits patiently until hell breaks loose
and then we become taken not with how to address the underlying root causes,
but rather how to get the doctors to call off the strike to enable us catch our
precious sleep again. When in February the doctors called off a two day strike
to create space for agreements to be implemented, how well did those concerned
with the direct implementation of the memorandum of understanding utilize that
opportunity? To my mind, not very much. Thriving on a crises –ridden agenda,
both the FWSC and the NLC which have now found their way to court, went to
sleep. Why? Because there was no strike, it appears.
The second concern pertains to the unsatisfactory piece meal
manner in which the NLC addresses matters before its arbitration panels. One is
often unable to tell whether it is sufficient lack of capacity to appreciate
the issues at stake, sheer lack of application or fruitless hope that in
ambiguity, problems will simply melt away.
From time immemorial, the GMA has always spoken about market premium and
the conversion difference, problematic definitions of which have led to some
doctors experiencing deductions on their pensions. Consistently, the NLC
rulings have remained silent on this aspect of the case. To the extent that
current payment schedules arranged pertain to market premium and arrears
accruing from same, the position of the NLC in its affidavit that “it has successfully met with all
parties and has subsequently reached a Memorandum of Understanding for monies
owed the respondent to be paid in installment” cannot be wholly accurate.
Admittedly, there are many things that could be done differently on all fronts and by all concerned parties. We are however at a dangerous point where some state agencies appear to be failing in their mandate leading to loss of confidence in their ability and/or willingness to address problems of the unions thus leading to predictable industrial unrest. Agencies like the NLC and FWSC are extremely tardy when addressing union interests while being extremely proactive when quenching the union interests and advancing employer interests becomes the matter at stake. Of all the things that need to change, this posturing must also change. If this doesn’t change, then the unions may always feel compelled to resort to what appears to be unruly methods which they may consider to be their only options, unfortunately.
Admittedly, there are many things that could be done differently on all fronts and by all concerned parties. We are however at a dangerous point where some state agencies appear to be failing in their mandate leading to loss of confidence in their ability and/or willingness to address problems of the unions thus leading to predictable industrial unrest. Agencies like the NLC and FWSC are extremely tardy when addressing union interests while being extremely proactive when quenching the union interests and advancing employer interests becomes the matter at stake. Of all the things that need to change, this posturing must also change. If this doesn’t change, then the unions may always feel compelled to resort to what appears to be unruly methods which they may consider to be their only options, unfortunately.
If the National Labour Commission truly wants to be the
final arbiter, then it must urgently learn to swing both ways. This current
hypocrisy is not part of the solution to the prevailing crises, unless of
course our only aim is to get doctors back to work, leave their concerns
unaddressed and earn our precious sleep!
The
French, the UN and the Ivory Coast
By Dr Gary K. Busch
 |
| A rebel of Guillome Soro's Republican Forces |
Ouattara has been forced by the need to hold some form of
plebiscite to demonstrate that his French-imposed Presidency of the country has
some legitimacy in the Ivory Coast. He has just held municipal and local
elections throughout the country which pitted his coalition (RDR and the PDCI)
against nobody, as the FPI (the ex-Gbagbo party) opposition has boycotted this
sham of an election. With a turnout of below 30% the unopposed candidates won.
Ouattara and his French puppet-masters call this a victory. To the rest of the
world this pathetic effort at political tumescence is the failure and
disappointment that everyone expected and awaited.
The problem which plagues Ouattara and his cast of rebel
rogues is that they do not have any legitimacy. The last election showed that
they could not command a majority of the nation’s voters and reverted to
electoral fraud and the vicious murder of thousands of Ivoirians by the French
and UN helicopters which mowed down people without regard to their innocence
and distance from any military activity in the name of the ‘international
community’.
They were aided by Dozo irregulars (tribal hunters) who were
empowered, armed and protected as they killed their way across the West and
centre of the Ivory Coast. The aftermath of this French-imposed rebel victory
was the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of innocent Ivoirians who
happened to be from non-Northern, non-Muslim ethnic groups.
For almost a year
and a half the residents of areas like Youpogon in Abidjan could not walk their
own streets without being afraid of robbery, violence, arrest and murder by the
new Ouattara forces who spoke only in Malinke or Dioula. Those who didn’t speak
these languages were considered fair game and unprotectable by any forces of
law and order.
Since 2002 the Ivory Coast has been divided by a rebellion
which divided the country in two.
This was a scheme devised by the French at
the supposed ‘peace process’ at Linas-Marcoussis and has been enforced by the
French Army ever since. It was not just a political separation; it was a
religious and ethnic divide as well. The French Army separated the rebel North
from the South and effectively divided the country along ethnic lines. The
French, and later the United Nations, moved in to maintain this division and to
protect the rebels from the wrath of the legitimate elected government of
Gbagbo.
There is no way of understanding what has happened to the
Ivory Coast without understanding the key role of the French in dividing the
country and supporting the rebellion for over twelve years. The French defended
their extensive economic interests in the country and were happy to murder and
pillage the Ivory Coast citizens; to assist in stealing their lands; take back
monopoly control of its industries and financial centres for French business;
destroy its Air Force; plot coups and assaults against the Gbagbo government;
force Gbagbo to accept the illiterate and incompetent rebels as Cabinet
members; rig the elections and jail thousands of patriots, including the
President, who is currently at the Hague defending himself against claims of a
crime against humanity. Other than eating African babies it is hard to imagine
anything else the French could have done to the country.
The reasons for the continuance of French dominance of the Ivory Coast are easy to see. The root cause of this situation is the French Françafrique policy towards Africa; its neo-colonial activities which have blighted Ivory Coast democracy for decades. The French never actually gave up owning and controlling the Ivory Coast even after it had achieved “flag independence”; having a flag, a national anthem, a seat in the UN and a football team. The Pacte Coloniale, which had tethered the economy, trade,finance and military structures to France was carried out in every Ivoirian ministry, bank and institution by the hundreds of French nationals sent to the Ivory Coast as ‘advisors’ under the French Ministry of Co-operation. In some Ministries there was one Frenchman for every Ivoirian. Ivoirian sovereignty was demeaned by the presence of the French ‘co-operants’ who made many of the actual decisions in running the country. French soldiers and police were based in the Ivory Coast and were responsible for the training, equipping and deployment of the Ivory Coast forces; indeed they were also responsible for the promotions given to Ivoirian officers. To this day the French Treasury continues to control the Ivory Coast currency, it capital reserves and its trade and investment policies. The French Army continues to control the rebel mob of half-trained soldiers and “Dozos” which make up the Ouattara Army, its equipment, its training and its deployment.
The French business community dominates almost every aspect of the national economy, even the oil industry and the cocoa industry where it shares its presence with a limited number of overseas companies. Other than those they maintain a monopoly in transport, water, electricity and ports and control most of the international commerce in Ivory Coast products and imports. There are hundreds of French administrators standing alongside Ivorian civil servants, ‘guiding’ their decisions.
 |
| French President Francois Hollande |
It was only the government of the FPI, led by President
Gbagbo, who tried to loosen the French reins on the country. When the FPI
government of Gbagbo, the democratically elected president, took office
after the period of military rule by Guei, there was a hope among the people of
the country that the economy would improve; that medical and social programs
would be reinstated; that the budget would be diverted back from military
expenditures to civilian programs; that the needed reinstatement of the
infrastructure would be undertaken; that a fair system of electoral reform and
citizenship would be undertaken to correct the xenophobia of Bedie’s and Guei’s
periods in power.
One of the reasons for the French unhappiness with Gbagbo
was that he refused to carry on with the political corruption prevalent and
promoted by the French. The country was virtually out of fuel. The director of
the S.I.R (Société Ivoirienne de Raffinage) had emptied the reserves of the
country’s energy coffers. He fled to France where he was offered sanctuary and
immunity for his theft by the French. There was no fuel and no money to buy
fuel. The representative of Total-Elf visited Gbagbo's office with the French
ambassador and said that they had two ships standing by off the Ivory Coast
ports which they could offer to Gbagbo. All they wanted in return was the
country’s only oil refinery which they would purchase for one symbolic franc.
The French would then operate the refinery as it wished, using the high-priced
oil Total would supply, and set the prices for the domestic market. They
brought a bag full of money for Gbagbo. He ordered them out of his office and
told them not to forget the bag of money they had left. A similar exchange took
place with the French cocoa entrepreneurs.
The same was true for the Companie Eléctricité Ivoirienne ,
the national power company. The contract with the CIE was due for renewal in
early 2004 and the French operator (SAUR) demanded the right to continue to
operate the national electricity grid in the way in which they had been
operating previously. The Ivory Coast government consumed about 170 billion CFA
francs (about 260 € million) a year. The French would supply overpriced gas to
the to the ABB Azito gas power plant as their rent on the power station and
grid but would charge everyone else hefty fees for power. Additionally, these
fees were not to be taxed as revenue to the operators but remitted directly to
them. There was no value added to the national economy, no amortisation of the
debt incurred in building the stations and the grid and with no control over
the prices. Gbagbo and his ministers said that this was unreasonable and
promised that when the current contract ran out it would be open for
international tender. The French were fuming.
 |
| Fmr. President Laurent Gbagbo of La Cote d'Ivoire |
The French met in Ouagadougou with Blaise Campaore and
Ouattara who had fled to sanctuary in the French Embassy when the rebellion
started. They decided that they would take advantage of a visit of Gbagbo to
Rome and prepared for a coup – the first of many. When Gbagbo travelled
overseas, the French plotters saw their opportunity. On the Wednesday, in
September 2002, when the rebellion began, there were about 650 rebels holed up
in Bouake. These were Guei appointees who had been purged from the Army. They
had little equipment and ammunition, as they had expected a conflict of no more
than five days. President Gbagbo was in Rome, meeting the Pope and the rebels
felt sure that the coup could take place quickly with the President out of the
country.
Fortunately for Gbagbo, his loyalist Army was led by his
Minister of Defence, Moise Lida Kouassi; a former cellmate of Gbagbo’s when
they had been jailed earlier, under Houphouet-Boigny, by his Prime Minister
Alassane Ouattara. The internal security was in the hands of another cellmate,
the Minister of the Interior, Emile Boga Doudou. As the coup began in the
second largest town, Bouake, the loyalist troops under Lida Kouassi responded.
They were able to surround the rebels, trapping them in the city, and killing
about 320 of them. They were positioned for a final onslaught on the remaining
330 rebels but were suddenly stopped by the French commander of the body of
French troops stationed in the Ivory Coast. He demanded a delay of 48 hours to
evacuate the French nationals and some US personnel in the town. Gbagbo’s army
demanded to be allowed to attack Bouake to put down the rebels but the French
insisted on the delay. As soon as there was a delay, the French dropped French
parachutists into Bouake who took up positions alongside the rebels. This made
it impossible for the loyalist troops to attack without killing a lot of
Frenchmen at the same time.
During those 48 hours the French military command chartered
three Antonov-12 aircraft, one of which picked up a load of weapons in
Franceville in Gabon; military supplies stocked by the French in Central
Africa. Two of the other planes had started their journey in Durban where
Ukrainian equipment and military personnel were loaded on board. The chartered
planes flew to Nimba County, Liberia (on the Ivory Coast border) and then on to
the rebel areas in Ivory Coast (Bouake and Korhogo) where they were handed to
the rebels. Busloads of Burkinabe troops (supplied at a price by Blaise Campaore)
were transported from Burkina Faso to Korhogo dressed in civilian clothes where
they were equipped with the military supplies brought in by the French from
Central Africa and the Ukraine.
All of a sudden there were 2,500 fully armed soldiers on the
rebel side as mercenaries from Liberia and Sierra Leone were also brought in by
the same planes as well. They were equipped with Kalashnikovs and other bloc
equipment which was never part of the Ivory Coast arsenal. France supplied
sophisticated communications equipment as well. Once the rebels were rearmed
and equipped, the French gradually withdrew, leaving operational control to the
Eastern European mercenaries who directed the rebels in co-ordination with the
French headquarters at Yamoussoukro.
The fact that the French had intervened to bring about the
success of creating a rebel force was not really news for Africa. France has
had a long track record of supporting similar violent rebellions in Africa.
During and after the genocide unleashed in Rwanda during April 1994, France was
shown to have played a similar role in this horrendous crime, which caused the
deaths of at least 800,000 people. Belgium, France and the United Nations knew
in advance that preparations were being made to exterminate the Tutsi minority
in Rwanda, and did nothing to prevent it.
The French government, which kept the
Hutu-led government in power, protected the killers and supplied them with
weapons while the massacres were in progress. "Operation Amaryllis,"
the French code name for the evacuation of European civilians in Rwanda in
1994, also organized the removal to France of Hutu "extremists"
centrally involved in the genocide. At the same time the French military
refused to evacuate Tutsi employees of the French embassy in Kigali, who faced
extermination.
A second evacuation, "Operation Turquoise," was
mounted later, as the RPF (Tutsi) offensive was on the brink of taking power,
to bring the Hutu Rwandan government and military leaders to safety in France
while French officers managed the "transition" to RPF rule. The
French armed the Hutu militias for a period of ten days after the genocide
began and intervened to protect the Hutu military when it was endangered. It
supervised the removal of the Interahamwe to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo where they continued their depredations.
 |
| Map of Africa |
Thousands more Africans were
murdered earlier in the suppression of the English-speaking population of the
South Cameroons; including the poisoning of the Cameroonian President
Félix-Roland Moumié in 1960 by the French government-sponsored terrorist group
‘Red Hand’ whose agent slipped thorium into the president’s cocktail in
Geneva.
The French demanded that the United Nations peacekeeping
forces be activated to maintain the safety of the rebels in their Northern
section of the country and to relieve the French of some of its financial
burdens of empire. They asked for the provision of West African ECOMOG forces
to come to the Ivory Coast to serve as peacekeepers. However, this African
‘peacekeeping’ was designed to be the preserve of francophone countries,
primarily Senegal. These francophone countries are under the direct or indirect
control of the French army. Their officers are trained in France or by French
soldiers in country. Their armament and supplies come from France and are
supplied on credits from the French Treasury. Their foreign intelligence and
military communications systems, and quite often their transport systems, are
run by French officers. They are, to all extents, black French surrogate
military forces. They offered little succour to the Ivory Coast patriots but
spread the costs of their occupation to the UN. Despite having lost the
rebellion, the French created a northern rebel state whose borders were
patrolled by French and françafrique soldiers and who were financed by the
‘international community’.
Perhaps the most devastating effect of the rebellion was the
reaction of the French and the international community to the division of the
country. In an effort to restore order and constitutional rule the treaties
signed in Linas-Marcoussis, Accra, Pretoria and Ouagadougou were designed to
restore peace and order in the Ivory Coast; all enshrined the notion of
condominium. That is, the international community insisted that the Prime
Minister step down and be replaced by an appointee chosen by them and that
there were Cabinet posts reserved for the ministers appointed by the rebel
political parties. Gbagbo and the FPI, who had been democratically elected in
2000, had to accept a prime minister not of their choosing and a Cabinet made
up, in part, by rebels.
These new Cabinet ministers demanded large salaries, cars
and jobs in their ministries for their friends and families. No notion of
competence or training was used in the selection of the new Cabinet ministers;
only that they were chosen by the rebel bands. In fact, few actually showed up
to work. The civil administration of the country was incoherent and conflicted
as the national interest took second place to the demands of rival Cabinet
ministers. The FPI was effectively stymied by internal dissent from a Prime
Minister who refused to obey the wishes of the President and the National
Assembly and a Cabinet which refused to obey any rule other than the Law of the
Jungle.
 |
| US Prez. Hussein Obama, he asked Gbagbo to step down |
On 29 February 2004 the UN Security Council agreed to send a
peacekeeping force of more than 6,000 troops to Cote d'Ivoire to supervise the
disarmament of rebel forces and to prepare for the presidential elections due
in October 2005.
After a long period of delay, the ministers from the New
Forces took their place in the Cabinet. The violence continued. The post-war
violence was not much different than the violence perpetrated during the
conflict, except that the French and UN helicopter gunships and tanks were not
then being used. According to Guillaume Ngefa, the acting human rights
chief in the UN Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) "Violations
committed include proven cases of summary, extrajudicial executions, illegal
arrests and detention, the freeing of people in return for cash, extortion, and
criminal rackets against numerous drivers" There were twenty-six
extrajudicial executions documented by the UN in Côte d'Ivoire in just one
week, including that of a 17-month-old baby; over a hundred other human rights
abuses were perpetrated in a single month by the FRCI. This is not only in the
military fiefdoms operated by these tin pot warlords in the North since their
rebellion in 2002, but in the heart of Abidjan itself.
Mr. Ngefa also voiced concern at violent clashes between the
army and young villagers in several areas, denouncing "acts of
intimidation, extortion and numerous obstacles to free movement committed by
army elements.” Citing cruel and inhuman treatment and violation of property
rights, he said similar abuses had also been perpetrated against ethnic groups,
such as the Bété, Bakwé, Attié and Ebrié. People are being attacked, robbed and
killed for their tribal identity. This is what the UN and France have achieved.
What did they expect? The rebels who separated the North
from the South of the country after their 2002 rebellion were not regular
soldiers. There were less than 1,250 regular soldiers in the New Forces which
morphed, by decree, into the FRCI. These rebel troops were shoemakers, porters,
rubbish collectors, itinerant labourers. They were joined by experienced
mercenaries from the wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia who showed them how to
run these rackets. At the time of the rebellion all the civil servants,
educators, doctors and the other members of the professional class fled
from the North.
The poor farmers who were left there paid no taxes, no rents,
no customs fees, and no services to the central government. They paid these
only to their local rebel commanders. They are still paying these to their
local commanders. Only now, this corrupt and vicious system spread to cover the
whole of the Ivory Coast when this malignant northern scum was allowed to take
over power in the South and the municipalities.
Many of the Liberians fighting in the Ivory Coast went home
when Charles Taylor fled Liberia. This left a power vacuum among the rebels.
They started fighting among themselves and several leaders were murdered. There
was a minor civil war going on among the rebels, with each faction blaming the
French for not protecting them. In May 2004, the UN found mass graves of the
rebels in the northern town of Korhogo. Later there were gun battles between
rival rebel factions which left 22 people dead in Korhogo and the central town
of Bouake. These fire fights began with a late-night attack on June 20 by
"heavily-armed elements" on a convoy travelling from Burkina Faso to
Korhogo carrying rebel leader Guillaume Soro. The violence in June followed
what forces loyal to rebel leader Guillaume Soro described as an assassination
attempt, when they blew up his plane. This they blamed on his Paris-based rival
Ibrahim Coulibaly, known as IB. Internecine warfare spread across the
rebel-held areas as rival warlords fought for turf. The French were unable to
reassert control for a lengthy period.
The internecine warfare by the rebels had a spill over
effect on the government of Gbagbo. The rebel bands were not controlled by the
French and often attacked the villages and military bases of the loyalist
Gbagbo forces of the South. With the French unable to control them, these
factions of the rebels escalated their attacks on the South. Finally, with the
arrival of the ECOMOG forces the French gradually reasserted its control of the
rebel movements. France made clear that its 4,000 troops in Cote d'Ivoire would
not become part of the UN peacekeeping force. The French soldiers kept the
peace and everything else they could find to steal. Twelve French soldiers on
peacekeeping duties in Ivory Coast were arrested in connection with a bank
theft there in September 2004.
 |
| Map of West Africa |
The troops had been assigned to protect a branch
of the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO). They were charged with
stealing $120,000 (100,000 euros). They were tried and found guilty in a French
court. This was not a unique case of the French soldiers stealing in the North.
There were several cases of rape and a few murders which involved French
soldiers on their own or in concert with rebel bands. Several were tried and
sentenced in France. There are several contemporary videos circulated in the
Ivory Coast which show the French military complicity in the torture and
killing of Ivoirian citizens.
These raids by the Northern rebels against the southern and
western towns and villagers were an open defiance of the rebel agreement to
disarm. In several international meeting the rebels had committed themselves to
a program of disarmament. Disarmament was crucial to resolving the issues which
divided north from south. The rebels refused to disarm and the French condoned
this.
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, on the way to the President’s
house, empty-handed to try and prevent the French from attacking the
Presidential palace. On November 6, 2004 the ‘French Peacekeepers’ opened fire
on unarmed Ivoirians from tanks and armoured cars. There are several
contemporary videos of this barbarity available on You Tube. The most
comprehensive are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBGEJs3G3g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A4l3xg-jvE. The
second shows the role of French snipers on the upper floor of the hotel.
Sixty-four Africans were killed and 1.300 wounded. This was all planned in
advance 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 Point 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. However, the Ivoirians
resisted and began to confront the UN ‘peacekeepers’. The UN relented.
The question to be asked is how in the 21st century could
such a policy of murder and mayhem be conducted by a Western government against
unarmed Africans in the name of the ‘international community’? It was clear
that the Ivoirian citizens did not agree to be dominated and murdered by the
French and other peacekeepers. The response of the international community was
even more frightful, 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.
To this day the prevalence of Muslim peacekeepers is overwhelming.
The Muslim rebels are hosts to a UN force composed almost
exclusively by Muslim UN peacekeepers and these same peacekeepers are now in
the South as well. The ostensible reason for the original rebellion was that
Muslims were not being considered equal citizens in the country. This was not a
religious issue; it was a 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
other 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 were similar accusations and trials which were underway in
the Ivory Coast at the time of Gbagbo’s ouster. 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.
In the wake of the civil disturbances created by this
massacre of civilians and the Ivoirians rally against the proposed destruction
of the National Assembly the French decided that they might do better by
planning a coup, ostensibly led by Africans. Among some communication
intercepts by Ivory Coast intelligence a recording was made of a contemporary
report outlining the French plans for such a coup and the active participation
of Ouattara and Blaise Campaore.
They decided to promote a coup in Abidjan on 22-33 March
2006. According to intelligence reports, the planning for this went back a long
way. There was a meeting held on Sunday 10/10/2004, in the village hall of the
town hall of Korhogo from 09h30 to 12h45. Present at this meeting were the
Presidents of Burkina Faso and Mali (BLAISE COMPAORE and AMADOU TOUMANI TOURE).
Also present was the head of the Rebel Forces and President of the RDR,
ALLASSANE DRAMANE OUATTARA. The French were represented by PHILIPPE POUCHET (as
Chirac’s spokesman) as well as ADAMA TOUNKARA, mayor of Abobo; ISSOUF SYLLA,
mayor of Adjamé; ISSA DIAKITE, KANDIA CAMARA, GEORGE KOFFI and MOROU OUATTARA.
 |
| The French school son Alhassan Quattarra |
Alassane Ouattara opened the meeting and introduced Pouchet.
He spoke and said that he had come directly from Chirac with the message that
“ADO (Ouattara) your son and brother will be President of the Republic of Côte
d`Ivoire before the elections of 2005.” Chirac has promised “There will be no
disarmament in Côte d`Ivoire without our agreement. It is necessary that the
agreements of ACCRA III are voted on before they can insist on disarmament. All
France and JACQUES CHIRAC support ADO to lead him to taking power in five
months; i.e. in March. We have recruited mercenaries who are currently in
training in Mali and in Burkina Faso. In March we will lead ADO to power with
the assistance of the mercenaries who are in training with Burkinabé officers
and Malians. Our objective it is to put ADO in power”. “I shall come again in
December, with President Campaore, and will introduce you to the mercenaries.
Ouattara will return in March to take power.”
The next speaker was Blaise Campaore, the President of
Burkina Faso, who thanked Pouchet and Chirac. He criticized the Ivory Coast
Government for ignoring the rights of Ouattara and said “It is my name which
spoiled in this business. In Burkina my officers are doing remarkable work with
the mercenaries to make them ready. I support you. We are moving to put things
in place from there for you. Do not be afraid; we will win the battle in a
little time. In five months all will be ready”. Fofie Kouakou, a local leader
got up to make his complaint. He said “It is that this rebellion which has
killed our children. I acknowledge that we are tired and that we cannot
continue the rebellion in our area. The North has profited nothing from this
rebellion. ADO is our son. We also fight for him but his men do not cease to
punish us every day. But, if it is like the white man says, that we will be in
power in March, we will also fight for this.” “But before leaving, please
instruct your men not to maltreat our children; especially our daughters.”
The next meeting of importance was held on the 20th of
February from 100 to 1420 in Sikasso, in Mali. Present at the meeting were
President CAMPAORE, President (and host) TOURE; PHILIPPE POUCHET representative
of Chirac; COLONEL CYRILLE DUBOTT, representing the French Army stationed in
Gabon; WATTAO; The Imam IDRISS KOUDOUSS; several mayors and military commanders
of the ‘Blue Brigade’. The meeting was opened by Toure who said that he
regretted that everyone had to make the journey but that it was better to meet
outside the Ivory Coast. He said that victory was in their grasp and that
POUCHET would make it clear.
POUCHET took the floor and introduced Colonel DUBOTT who was
sent especially for this by Chirac. “He was chosen for this because he is not
known in the Ivory Coast” POUCHET went on that Col. DUBOTT would accompany
POUCHET to Abidjan to stay at the TIAMA HOTEL for four days. There he would
plan the details of the coup and co-ordinate the mercenaries in their attack on
the capital. “The town of Abidjan will be taken during the night of the 22nd of
March and the takeover should be completed by the afternoon of the 23rd.”
The
plan is for the mercenaries to stage an ‘invasion;’ and the French peacekeepers
will intervene on their side, claiming that an attack on foreigners was being
made by Gbagbo’s loyalist forces. In the run up to this there would be several
provocations and incidents which would convince the world that Gbagbo’s forces
were getting restless.
POUCHET emphasized that the reason for the timing was that
the Unicorn Force (the French military contingent) would be obliged to leave by
the 4th of April if the UN mandate was not renewed. “Thus we have the duty to
remove Gbagbo and replace him with Ouattara by this date” Pouchet and Ouattara
would stand by in Gabon from the 18th of March. The mercenaries trained by
Campaore will stay in Bouake until the 17th when they would transfer to Port
Bouet.
The new equipment would be made available to them by a convoy of 4 x4s
led by Idriss Koudouss. These would join up with the rebels who would start
infiltrating Abidjan from the 20th. At that time the heavy equipment and
weapons provided through Burkina Faso would be made available and the rebels
would take up their positions at the designated places in Abidjan. On the
morning of the 22nd the RDR was scheduled to stage a march though Abidjan in
which some of the rebels would participate. Colonel DUBOTT was to disperse his
mercenaries to selected areas of the city. Then, after a planned disturbance,
the coup would begin. Superior Ivoirian intelligence thwarted this coup.
This was not the first time that the French have planned
military coups in the Ivory Coast. There have been three, well-documented,
coups planned against Gbagbo. Indeed, the meddling and murderous actions of
France’s Force Licorne have been documented by its own leaders. A recent book
by Lieutenant-Colonel Georges Peillon, (The Great Silence) writing about
the French support of the Ivory Coast rebels leaves no question about the
French interference with democracy and their covert support of the rebels whom
he describes in scathing tones. He wrote “The problem of the northern zone was
that there was no functioning administrative organization. There were armed
bands, called the New Forces, which had plundered all that represented the
administration. One could find in the market of Bouaké french fries being sold,
wrapped in birth certificates.”
Peillon, writing under the nom de plume Georges Neyrac, was
the spokesman for the Force Licorne. The perfidious role of Chirac and his
apprentice Villepin is described in detail in the book as is the scandalous
order to kill the innocent demonstrators in 2004 by Michèle Alliot-Marie.
Pouchet, Chirac’s ‘agitator in residence’ attended many meetings in Burkina
Faso, Mali and in rebel territory planning coups against Gbagbo’s government.
The minutes of several of these meetings have been made public.
On August 20, 2005 Gen. Mathias Doué, whom President Gbagbo
had replaced as army chief of staff the previous November with Gen. Phillippe
Mangou publicly called for the departure of President Gbagbo, and threatened to
resort to “all necessary means” if the international community failed to ensure
his departure. In one tape he threatened a military revolt by Gbagbo’s troops.
Doue and his fellow plotters met in Korhogo on August 22, 2005 to plot the
military revolt. Doue arrived in a column of 4 x4 vehicles with tinted glass
given to him by Campaore. There he met Sherif Ousmane, Wattao, Soumaila
Bakayoko and Kousako Fofie (all rebel tin pot warlords).
 |
| French troops trained mercenaries |
In a four hour meeting
he assured them that he was on their side and promised that there would be
French-trained mercenaries “Burkinabe, Chadians, Gabonese, etc.” sent to aid
them. “We have the support of certain African and European heads of State. This
would be called “Operation Red Tulip”. For these attacks, Sheriff Ousmane,
Wattao, Herve Vetcho, Morou Ouattara would lead the troops on the ground. In
Abidjan, while the simultaneous attacks would proceed on all fronts, Doué and
his new rebellious companions intended to cause a popular rising. It failed.
Doué was not the only senior officer to have publicly
expressed his dissatisfaction. In June 2005 Col. Jules Yao Yao, the former Army
spokesman, was dismissed, and a few days later arrested and interrogated, along
with Col.-Maj. Désiré Bakassa Traoré, the commander of the National Office for
Civil Protection, retired Gen. Laurent sa Traoré, the commander of the National
Office for Civil Protection, and retired Gen. Laurent M’Bahia. Colonel Yao Yao
went into hiding after he was freed, and had openly challenged Gbagbo’s
presidency, for example when he and Doué threatened to return to “assume their
responsibilities.”
The French have encouraged, supported and sheltered these
turncoats and dissidents, and have given them a voice in international
meetings. It must be stated that when the phrase, the ‘French’, is used it has
a special meaning. Unlike in ordinary democracies, the French version of
democracy is a special case. By tradition in France, foreign affairs are the
French president's private domain. The foreign affairs minister only applies
his policies. France is the only Western country where foreign policy is not a
debating topic for the National Assembly. The sovereignty of the French people
does not mean anything nor can it be expressed even if it has elected the
president directly. The Parliament has no checking powers and is quietly
relegated to domestic matters.
The war of the French against the Ivory Coast was a war by
Jacques Chirac against the Ivory Coast and Gbagbo. It was his fit of pique
which ordered the French ‘peacekeepers’ to attack and destroy the Ivory Coast
air force. It was his order to send over a hundred tanks to surround the Hotel
d’Ivoire and President Gbagbo’s house. It was his decision to allow his
soldiers to open fire on a crowd of singing youths, totally unarmed and
non-threatening, seeking only to stop the French from making a coup or killing
President Gbagbo. It was he, African advisor Michel d’Bonnecorse, Defence
Minister Aliot-Marie and DGSE chief Pierre Brochand, who made and controlled
French policy and programs in Africa. They were aided by a web of French agents
assigned to work undercover in French companies like Bouygues, Delmas, Total,
and other multinationals; pretending to be expatriate employees. This is normal
French neo-colonial behaviour. However, this time the French managed to hook in
the ‘international community’ to support them.
These constant attacks on Gbagbo, the FPI and the Ivoirian
people did not cease. Still less was there any movement towards the promised
disarmament. The rebels refused to disarm. They demanded that they be integrated
into the FANCI (the national army); retaining their grades and receiving back
pay for the time they were in rebellion. The absence of disarmament was
crucial.
In order to proceed to the next election it was necessary to prepare a
proper electoral roll and set up an infrastructure to carry out the basic
administrative functions for governance. Virtually all the civil servants,
teachers, doctors, engineers and professional people had fled the North as the
rebellion began. There were no schools, universities, banks, hospitals or city
administrations operating in the North from 2002 until 2010 when the election
was scheduled to happen.
The rebels had destroyed almost all the administrative
files: records of births, deaths, marriages, property, taxes, school
certificates; citizenship; drivers’ licenses; health records; bank deposits;
etc. No one in the North paid income taxes, customs duties, or other fees to
the Ivory Coast government in the South. All of the electricity in the North
came from the South; as did the water, fuel and communications systems. It was
kept turned on by the French owners of these monopolies during the secession of
the North even though there were many who begged Gbagbo to turn off the water,
electricity, fuel deliveries and the telephone system to cut off the North and
return it to the stone age.
The South picked up the bill through the extra
changes imposed by the French monopolists. Gbagbo could turn all these services
off with great ease and on the basis that the North wasn’t paying the
government for these services; not for any political reason. The South was
subsidising the North. Gbagbo refused to turn off the services.
Without disarmament the administrators sent up to the North
to register people to vote were afraid to do so. The rebel troops harassed them
and the people seeking registration had no proof that they were, indeed,
citizens. The rebels held open air rallies, surrounded by their soldiers, where
people’s names were placed on the electoral roll, willy-nilly. It was a fraudulent
exercise; particularly as they registered the Burkinabe, Liberian and Malian
rebels as Ivory Coast citizens with the right to vote.
The French intervened and took on the responsibility of
voter registration. In the long run up to preparing for the elections in the
Ivory Coast the French imposed the company SAGEM, a subsidiary of the French
company, Safran, as the vehicle to prepare, along with the indigenous INEC
(electoral commission) a list of voters for the upcoming elections. This
contract was initially to cost around 120 million Euros. This was to prepare an
electoral register and the suitable voting cards. Not only did this take a very
long time but it was flawed and unreliable.
The fundamental problem is that there was collapse of the
political will to resolve these conflicts. Until March 2007 when the contesting
parties met in Ouagadougou to sign the Ouagadougou Accord which formed the
basis of the revised political structure, the North and the South were at least
demonstrating that they had a point of view. After Ouagadougou the conflict of
ideas and political initiatives were subsumed in jockeying for advantage in an
election that was constantly postponed.
The result was delay and dissatisfaction. They had a
government, made up of a mixed cabinet formed from mongrel and traitorous
parties, totally incapable of uniting on any coherent economic, social or
political policy. There was an army of mixed rebels and loyalists who did not
take orders from a central command; further enfeebled by constant stories of
plots and coups. The New Force warlords remained unhappy with Soro (their
commander) and they threatened to kill him regularly.
The only people who were happy with this were the French.
They had succeeded in restoring their neo-colonial hold over the country. Their
businesses had returned in force to the Ivory Coast and controlled over 65% of
all its commerce. The United Nations had agreed to pay for most of the
peacekeeping troops, including the French peacekeepers. The nations of the European
Community were helping subsidise the ‘identification’ process which put
millions of Euros into the hands of a French company. The Ivoirians of both the
North and the South were impotent and made do with competing for the best seats
on the Ivoirian Titanic.
On the fiftieth anniversary of its independence, the
politicians of the Ivory Coast announced that the oft-postponed national
elections would take place on October 31, 2010. Unfortunately, for the
large bulk of the Ivoirian population this election would be a cruel joke.
Elections are meant to resolve problems; to clarify the political power issues;
to charge political victors and parties with the responsibilities for the
programs they campaigned for during the election. In this election the parties did
not have programs; half the country was occupied by a piratical rabble of
failed soldiers; no disarmament of the rebels had effectively taken place; no
legitimacy was ascribed to the voting rolls or the electoral process; the
occupying French forces and their UN supporters dominated the security of the
country; and the aged and fading political party leaders wallowed in the mud of
indecision.. It was a shambles. Although Gbagbo had a lead in the ballot there
was a need for a runoff between Gbagbo and Ouattara. The runoff ballot was held
amidst major fraud in polling places in the North, intimidation of voters by
rebel soldiers, and incompetent mathematics in evaluating the results.
As the results came in from around the country it was clear
to the poll observers that Gbagbo maintained a lead over Ouattara. Near the end
of the counting of the ballots the Ouattara team announced that Ouattara was
the winner. His victory was announced at Ouattara’s campaign headquarters by
his campaign manager. This had no legal effect or legitimacy but the
international community began to trumpet Ouattara’s purported victory. The
actual ballots cast were collected by the Electoral Commission and delivered to
the Constitutional Court; the legal body established to pronounce on the
validity of an election under the Constitution.
The French, buoyed by their
successful recent intervention in Guinea where they managed to advance their
candidate, Alpha Conde, to the Presidency, were sure that their manipulation of
the voters’ roll and their protection of the Northern rebel leadership would
give them an unassailable lead in the runoff election.
However, the blatant
vote-rigging in several Northern constituencies (where more people voted than
were on the electoral roll) and where armed rebel troops surrounded the polling
stations making sure that voters voted ‘correctly’ were so blatant that a real
count could not be made in the requisite period.
The Constitutional Court examined the situation and the
voting procedures and declared that President Gbagbo was re-elected. This was
in opposition to the Ouattara electoral commission which declared their man as
the winner.
 |
| US Hillary Clinton |
At that point the French, the U.N. and their hangers-on (the
European Union and Hillary Clinton) said that Gbagbo should withdraw from
office despite his victory. They made an effort to persuade the ECOWAS (Union
of West African States) to use violence against the civilian population in the
Ivory Coast. The French were determined, as ever, to persuade others to fight
their battles for them if bullying on their own wouldn't work. The Ghanaians,
South Africans, Zimbabweans and others demanded that the Constitutional Court
be heard and its verdict allowed, but the Federation of Mendicants, Beggars,
Buffoons and Imbeciles which made up the vast African dependencies of
Francafrique, won the day in ECOWAS.
This stand-off prevailed for a month or so with Ouattara and
his men holed up in the Hotel Golf in Abidjan, protected by the French Army and
the UN peacekeepers. Violence began to break out in the countryside, in the
West, where rabid bands of rebels joined up with the Dozos in a program of mass
slaughter and genocide. Thousands were killed, injured, raped and driven from
their homes as the Northerners, supported by the French and UN troops were let
loose on civilian villages. Fighting broke out as well in Abidjan.
The UN hired three Mi-24 helicopter gunships from the
Ukraine. They were acquired by the United Nations peacekeepers and were stored
in Bouake, in the North. This was the rebel’s headquarters. In an order issued
to the UN forces in the Ivory Coast on 27 February 2011 Brigadier General
Benjamin Freeman Kusi, the Chief in Command of the ONUCI (UN peacekeepers)
reported the news of the arrival of the Mi-24 helicopters . With no
sense of irony he wrote:” Mission: To temporarily reinforce the capacity of
action of ONUCI we have deployed in Ivory Coast 3 x MI-24 combat helicopters
which will make it possible for the U.N. Force to maintain peace and safety in
the country. It will be initially a defensive and dissuasive force. The unit
will operate especially on the Bouaké-Yamoussoukro-Abidjan axes but with an
operational capacity on the whole of the national territory.” These helicopters
were used almost exclusively against the civilian population of the Ivory
Coast, standing off about two miles from their targets and shooting
indiscriminately at their targets; killing and wounding thousands. French
helicopters and tanks joined them in this barrage of civilian areas, killing
many more. After a fierce resistance the UN and French helicopters dropped
heavy ordinance at the Presidential residence. French Special Forces entered
the President’s home and captured the leadership gathered there. The French
soldiers then turned their prisoners over to the Ouattara forces.
Many of those captured were molested, beaten and abused on
the spot. Others were taken away to be tortured by the rebels. The President
and his wife were hurried out of Abidjan to prisons in the North to stop any
attempts at rescue. Gbagbo was later turned over to the International Criminal
Court for trial. His wife remains in jail in the North. Many of the loyalist
soldiers and police fled into Ghana and Liberia, seeking sanctuary. Ouattara
declared himself President and the rebels all took up jobs in the new
administration.
The involvement of the UN forces in these massacres is the
direct responsibility of Ban Ki Moon. There was no authorisation by the UN
Security Council for this policy of violence and extermination. There was an
international ban on the provision of arms to the country passed by the UN. The
green light to shoot at unarmed civilians was given on the 26th of February
2011 by Ban Ki-Moon’s henchman and UN fixer, Choi, who was named the UN
representative in the Ivory Coast. In a press interview given by the UN
soldiers in Abidjan at the Hotel Sebroko, they announced that they had been
given a clear order by Jin Choi to open fire on anyone who stood in the way of
UN operations on the ground in the Ivory Coast. When asked further whether this
meant unarmed civilians Choi answered "shoot anyone who will interfere in
the exercise of your duties, the Boss (BAN KI-MOON) gave us the go-ahead;
nothing would happen". (TWN radio 26/2/11).
The involvement of the UN in genocide is not unprecedented
but at least ought to be subject to scrutiny. The immediate result of Choi’s
order occurred the next day in Daloa, the third biggest town. There, a
police officer, the son of Martin GROGUHET former PDCI Deputy Mayor of
DALOA, was shot to death with a bullet in the back while he was leaving UNOCI
headquarter after freeing three Young Patriots taken hostage by
those soldiers following a peaceful negotiation. There was no appeal. No
prosecution. Across the Ivory Coast the rebels, who have been re-armed by the
UN with heavy weapons, attacked the FANCI and FDS (government forces). When
they responded the rebels (usually dressed in UN uniforms) used the ‘kill
order’ issued by Choi to use their heavy weapons against civilian populations.
The UN helicopters were used to blow up a supermarket in Cocody.
Where else but at the largest unsupervised asylum for
sociopaths in Turtle Bay does this make any sense? Who authorised a shoot to
kill policy to the UN troops? The rebels were supposed to have been disarmed.
Indeed this was part of every treaty and agreement they signed. Why did the UN
added to their weapons with RPGs, mines, tanks and then helicopters in spite of
its own embargo on arms deliveries? What kind of lunacy is this when the UN debates
sanctions against Libya in the morning for doing exactly what the UN itself is
agreeing to do against the Ivory Coast in its afternoon session?
The fault lies at the top; the Secretary-General. He is not
only incompetent and ignorant but a moral imbecile who has brought the UN into
disgrace. In a speech during the International Defense Dialogue (March 22-25,
2012) in Jakarta, Indonesia, Ban Ki-Moon admitted that the success of the
peacekeeping mission in Côte d'Ivoire could not have been possible without
Ukrainian peacekeepers.,"...we might not have prevailed without the
contribution of one country: Ukraine, which lent us three combat military
helicopters at the critical moment".
Thirty-eight Ukrainian peacekeepers
from the 56th separate helicopter squadron of Ukrainian Armed Forces, serving
as part of the United Nations Organization's mission in Liberia, participated
in operation to maintain security during the runoff presidential elections in
Cote d'Ivoire in December 2011. On January 19, 2011 the UN Security Council
adopted the Resolution 1967 to strengthen its peacekeeping mission in Côte
d'Ivoire. At that time Ukraine received both an official note from the UN
Secretariat soliciting assistance and personal request from the UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to support the UN peacekeeping force in the
region. Ban Ki Moon added his personal note which empowered the Ukrainians to
expand their role beyond defensive.
 |
| UN Secretary Ban Ki- Moon |
Now Ban Ki Moon has announced he has asked the United
Nations for drones to monitor its border the Ivory Coast border with Liberia.
The country's UN envoy believes drones are needed to make up for the expected
decline in the UN's personnel presence. He has already arranged for this in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, to help monitor its borders with Rwanda and
Uganda. Western Ivory Coast has recently seen raids by supporters of former
President Laurent Gbagbo, ousted in 2011's war.
Indeed there has been a lot of unrest in the West. There,
having been assaulted, murdered and beaten by the Ouattara forces and the Dozos
many farmers from the rich cocoa growing region have been driven from their
farms; some seeking sanctuary among their ethnic relatives across the Liberian
border and some gathered in refugee camps. Their former farm labourers, under the
generic term ‘Mossi’ (immigrants from Burkina Faso and Mali) have taken over
these farms and have claimed them for their own. Ouattara has just declared
that these imported Burkinabe farm workers are now Ivoirians by decree (which
is the way he became Ivoirian) and have title to the lands they have seized
from their former employers who have tilled these fields for centuries. Seizing
the patrimony of farmers is a certain way to provoke unrest.
Today the Ivory Coast is once again a French colony in fact
if not in name. Ouattara has no political base except for the French and is in
constant fear for his life. He spends his entire time travelling because he is
afraid that his rebel friends will assassinate him. The warlords, Vetcho and
Wattao are still busy with the illegal trade in diamonds with their partner
Campaore. With the death of IB Coulibaly. Soro is a bit safer but still
nervous. The country is in decline and Ouattara has just announced, like
Petain, that he is ready to rule by decree.
In short, despite the thousands of the dead, the
displacement of thousands more, there is no safety, justice or progress in the
country. Two recent reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
spell this out in detail. There is ‘victor’s justice’ in operation with
hundreds of Gbagbo and FPI supporters still incarcerated across the country.
The FPI (the Ivorian Popular Front) still have nearly 670 supporters detained
two years after the arrest of its leader, Laurent Gbagbo, transferred on 30
November 2011 at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. According to
Amnesty International (February 26, 2013), the Ivorian Human Rights League
(April 3) and Human Rights Watch (April 4).
They identify 668 as of 29 March 2013) civilian and military
personnel incarcerated in a dozen prisons from Abidjan to Korhogo, passing by
Bouna, Dimbokro, Boundiali, Man, Seguela, Katiola, Toumodi and Odienné.
The main prison, MACA, holds only 514 of them. Most of them are being
prosecuted for "violation of the security of the State",
"breaching national defence", "genocide", "disturbance
to public order" in relation to the second round of the controversial
presidential election in November 2010.
Some others have regained their freedom. Most of the leaders
remain in prison or arrest. Former Ministers Geneviève Bro-Grebe and Abou
Drahamane Sangaré, as well as the former Chief of Cabinet of Gbagbo, Narcisse
Kuo Téa, are imprisoned in Katiola, in the centre of the country. Former Prime
Minister Pascal Affi Nguessan, in Bouna, near the border with Ghana, along with
the son of the former president, Michel Gbagbo, and former Minister Moïse Lida
Kouassi, extradited in June 2012 from Togo. The former Governor of the Central
Bank of the States of l'Afrique de l'Ouest (BCEEAO), Philippe Henri Dacoury
Tabley, is held at Boundiali, and former first lady of Côte d'Ivoire, Simone
Ehivet-Gbagbo, is incarcerated at Odienné, Northwest.
 |
| Charles Ble Goude, he did no wrong |
Charles Blé Goudé
is being kept at the DST headquarters in Abidjan.
None of the criminals, rapists, thieves, bandits and
murderers of Ouattarra’s side have been arrested despite everyone’s knowledge
of their crimes. This is a very strange form of justice. The French prosper. In
fact they have claimed full compensation from Ouattara for the property that
was damaged in the riots after they shot down the innocents at the Hotel Ivoire
plus a doubling of the fee to recompense them for lost business.
However, there is a rising unrest in the country as the
enormity of the duration of the rape of the country continues. Having a sham
municipal election is no cure. France is now at its weakest worldwide. Its
economy is in tatters; its armies overstretched in Mali and the CAR; it
military capacity grossly reduced. There was never a time when they were more
vulnerable and bereft of money, cohesion and international support. This seems
a good time to consider how this weakness can be turned towards the liberation
of the Ivory Coast and the severing of the French colonial bonds once and for
all.
There are spirits haunting the land; the spirits of the
dead, tortured and missing; and the spirits of the ancestors whispering that
the land they farmed, built their families in and in which they are
buried should not be allowed to be taken by strangers. Perhaps this is a
good time.
The “fake universities” syndrome
By Chido Onumah
Last
July, shortly after the horrific Dana Air crash that killed over a hundred
Nigerians, I did a piece titled “Murder Incorporated”. The thrust of the piece
was that the government ought to take the larger blame for the incident. Why?
Because ours is a country of “anything goes”.
There
are laws, but people break them with impunity and no one gets punished. That
really is what separates us from the rest of the so-called developed world. The
lack of respect for laws by citizens and the inability of government to uphold
the rule of law make all the difference between a stable and prosperous state
and one poised to fail.
While
working on the article referenced above, I came across a National Universities
Commission (NUC) newsletter that had a list of 44 “fake universities” in the
country. That piece of information was meant as a cautionary note for students
and parents as well as the public. It is hard to say how many of those
concerned saw and benefitted from the NUC alert. From all indications, not
many.
Just
last week, close to a year after the NUC highlighted the issue of “fake
universities”, I visited the NUC website only to discover that the list had
grown to 49 and counting. It is either that, in response to the country’s
glorification of paper qualification, business is thriving for “fake
universities” or those who are supposed to rein in these illegal entities are
not doing what is expected of them.
That
the NUC had to issue another warning recently is a pointer to how menacing the
issue has become. The latest information about “fake universities” and “degree
mills” in the country came via a public announcement signed by Prof. Julius
Okojie, Executive Secretary, National Universities Commission.
“The National
Universities Commission (NUC) wishes to announce to the general public,
especially parents and prospective undergraduates that the under listed “Degree
Mills” have not been licensed by the Federal Government and have, therefore,
been closed down for violating the Education (National Minimum Standards, etc)
Act CAP E3 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004,” Prof. Okojie noted.
The
list of “fake universities” included such incongruous names as
Christians
of Charity American University of Science & Technology, Nkpor, Anambra
State; University of Industry, Yaba, Lagos; Blacksmith University, Awka; UNESCO
University, Ndoni, Rivers State; The International University, Missouri, USA,
Kano and Lagos Study Centres; Pilgrims University operating anywhere in Nigeria;
Kingdom of Christ University, Abuja; Acada University, Akinlalu, Oyo State;
Fifom University, Mbaise, Imo State; Atlantic Intercontinental University,
Okija, Anambra State; Olympic University, Nsukka, Enugu State; and Federal
College of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Abuja.
According
to the NUC, “In addition to the closure, the following “Degree Mills” are
currently undergoing further investigations and/or ongoing court actions. The
purpose of these actions is to prosecute the proprietors and recover illegal
fees and charges on subscribers: National University of Nigeria, Keffi,
Nasarawa State; North Central University, Otukpo, Benue State; Christ Alive
Christian Seminary and University, Enugu, Enugu State; Richmond Open
University, Arochukwu, Abia State; West Coast University, Umuahia, Abia State;
Saint Clements University, Iyin Ekiti, Ekiti State; Volta University College,
Aba, Abia State; illegal satellite campuses of Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma,
Edo State”.
For good measure, Prof Okojie added, “For the avoidance of doubt, anybody who patronises or obtains any certificate from any of these illegal institutions does so at his or her own risk. Certificates obtained from these sources will not be recognised for the purposes of NYSC, employment, and further studies.
For good measure, Prof Okojie added, “For the avoidance of doubt, anybody who patronises or obtains any certificate from any of these illegal institutions does so at his or her own risk. Certificates obtained from these sources will not be recognised for the purposes of NYSC, employment, and further studies.
The relevant Law enforcement agencies have also been informed for their further necessary action. This list of illegal institutions is not exhaustive”. How reassuring!
It is
heartwarming that the NUC appears to be tackling the menace of “fake
universities” frontally. But there are many questions begging for answers. What
type of “investigations” is the NUC conducting? Universities are not daycare
centres. How did these “Degree Mills” start off? Is there a “cabal” behind
these “fake universities”? Are there no regulations/requirements before
universities are accredited? Did the NUC accredit the universities it is
investigating?
The
NUC has a list of legally recognised universities in the country and any
institution that purports to be a university that is not on the list should be
closed down immediately and its proprietors prosecuted. That is the easiest way
to put an end to this scam. In this regard, does the NUC have the support of
the government and its relevant agencies to prosecute the proprietors of these
illegal universities?
Coming
on the heels of the federal government’s appointment of Salisu Buhari,
discredited former Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the governing
council of a federal university, it is easy to see the kind of support the NUC
would get from the government. For those who need reminding, Mr. Buhari was the
first speaker of the House of Representatives when the Fourth Republic took off
in 1999. He came to that position having lied about his age and qualification.
He claimed a degree from the University of Toronto, Canada, which he never
earned.
When
Buhari bowed to public pressure and tearfully tendered his letter of
resignation to the House, claiming to be motivated by his zeal to serve his
country, he received a thunderous applause from his fellow honourable
colleagues who agreed to pardon him. That pardon did come eventually through
his mentor, then president, Olusegun Obasanjo.
The
other day, I watched presidential spokesman, Reuben Abati, on Channels TV
trying laboriously to defend the appointment of Buhari. According to Abati,
“The thing about pardon is that it turns you into a new man. Out of 251 persons
appointed to governing council of federal universities, I don’t think we really
have to worry ourselves so much about one man”.
Perhaps,
in tackling the problem of “fake universities” the government needs to borrow a
leaf from its own playbook. Only recently, through one of its agencies, the
National Film and Video Censors Board (NFVCB), the government banned the airing
and distribution of the documentary, “Fueling Poverty”. The 30-minute film
documents the corruption in the country’s oil industry, its impact and the
response of Nigerians to the waste and obnoxious policies it has engendered.
The
NFVCB says the documentary “is highly provocative and likely to incite or
encourage public disorder and undermine national security”. It warned the film
maker and his associates about the consequences of violating the order, saying
“all relevant national security agencies (including the Department of State
Services and the Police) are on the alert”. I would think the menace of
“fake universities” is a greater threat to us than a 30-minute film that merely
documents what Nigerians already know.
We
look forward to the outcome of the NUC’s “investigation” and hope that at the
end of the day, we actually see people punished for violating the Education
(National Minimum Standards etc) Act CAP E3 Law of the Federation of Nigeria
2004.
DPRK (North Korea) Three Two One Zero
 |
| Pyongyang, a modern and vibrant city. Crime rate, next to Zero |
By Timothy
Bancroft-Hinchey
Here it comes, ladies and gentlemen,
the media circus hype factory has pitched tents on the outskirts of town, the
bullshit counter is in the red and the same old same old lie peddlers have set
their sights on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Here we go again...
And
roll up and let's see how they rape the truth... Why, a nice little jingle for
a start, here it goes: The Commies are broke, North Korea's a joke, roll over!
Roll over! Chuckle, how jolly funny, I don't think so. And let us now see who
are those rapists....
Why,
the FUKUS Axis. France, the UK and the US. As usual. Remember when NATO lied
about Saddam Hussein procuring yellowcake uranium from "Nigeria"?
(Courtesy of British intelligence). The correct answer would have been
"Niger" (different country) with one small problem - Saddam Hussein
and Iraq were not looking for it.
Never
mind, the same British intelligence convinced Colin Powell, then US Secretary
of State, that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Powell's "magnificent
foreign intelligence" was in fact a doctoral thesis from ten years earlier
copied and pasted from the Net and "sexed up" by "you know, I
mean, Tony sort of Blair".
In a
word... Bullshit.
Iraq
had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, otherwise it would have obliterated the
build-up of NATO troops in Kuwait before they invaded.
Never
mind, the same NATO/FUKUS Axis then spent almost a decade planning the Arab
Spring, clinically securing the Libyan borders to the west (Tunisia) and east
(Egypt) and then invading Libya, with boots on the ground, wholly against
international law (UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 - 2011). They claimed the Air
Force of Muammar al-Qathafi was bombing civilians.
This
was a barefaced, blatant lie. Saif al-Islam al-Qathafi asked SKY News (one of
the lie peddlers) to take him to see the homes the air force had bombed. There
weren't any. Never mind... just another lie.
Bullshit.
Then
we had the failed Green Revolution in Iran, based on demonology against Mahmoud
Ahmadi-Nejad, we had the failed White Revolution in the Russian Federation as
youths were paid ready cash to take to the streets and images were posted in
"reputable" western media outlets of mass demonstrations in Moscow.
In fact, they were copied and pasted from 1991, when the people took to the
streets to protest against the transformation of the USSR.
So,
more bullshit.
Then
more lies about Syria, where the "Government" was planning to deploy
chemical weapons against the "rebels". In the event, the only
chemical weapons deployed in the entire conflict were by the terrorists against
Government forces.
And
the same FUKUS Axis is trying to create a case against the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea. Has the DPRK committed a double act of nuclear terrorism
against civilians? No.
Has
the DPRK invaded anybody? No. Has the DPRK supported terrorists to bring down
governments in sovereign states? No. Has the DPRK strafed civilians with
napalm? No. No, no, no, no... yet the hype continues. Suddenly we have footage
of "slavery camps" in the DPRK, and "six-year-old boys"
starving to death, looking suspiciously like hoodies with the bodies of
18-year-olds.
So,
those who are accusing the DPRK of anything, or everything, are hardly
credible, are they? After all, the USA complains about human rights in Cuba,
where the worst case of injustice is the concentration camp called Guantanamo
Bay.
Egypt
withdraws from nuclear talks
 |
| Israel's Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev desert |
Egypt has withdrawn from Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
talks in Geneva in protest over the failure of the international community to
implement a resolution for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.
On Monday, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the country ended its participation in the two-week talks over other nations’ failure to implement the 1995 resolution, which calls for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.
“We can’t wait forever for the implementation of this decision,” the ministry’s statement said.
The walkout was meant "to send a strong message of
non-acceptance of the continued lack of seriousness in dealing with the
establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East," the statement
pointed out.
The second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons started on April 22 and will continue until May 3 in Geneva.
The meeting is to review progress in implementing the 1970 NPT, a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.
On the first day of the conference, former Egyptian Ambassador to Geneva Hisham Badr said, "Egypt and many Arab countries have joined the NPT with the understanding that this would lead to a Middle East completely free of nuclear weapons.”
"However, more than 30 years later, one country in the Middle East, namely Israel, remains outside the NPT," he said.
Cairo has time and again urged Tel Aviv to sign the NPT and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities, a call rejected by Israel.
Israel reportedly maintains between 200 and 400 atomic warheads, but under its policy of so-called nuclear ambiguity, it has never denied nor confirmed its possession of the weapons of mass destruction.
Furthermore, the regime has never allowed any international inspection of its nuclear facilities.
Tel Aviv has also refused to join the IAEA, which limits members to civilian uses of nuclear technology.
Karzai admits to being on CIA payroll
 |
| Afghan President Hamid Karzai |
Top Afghan officials have been on the CIA’s payroll for over
a decade, receiving tens of millions of US dollars in cash. Afghan President
Hamid Karzai admitted to receiving the clandestine financial support, but
dismissed the sum as a “small amount.”
A New York Times report has revealed
that unparalleled corruption in the Afghan government has been encouraged by
the US Central Intelligence Agency. Since the start of the decade-long war, CIA
agents have delivered cash to Afghan officials in “suitcases, backpacks and,
on occasion, plastic shopping bags.”
“We called it ‘ghost money,’” said Khalil Roman, President Hamid Karzai’s former chief of
staff from 2002 to 2005, adding that it “came in secret, and it left in
secret.” There is no evidence that President Karzai was a recipient of any
of the money, as Afghan officials claim the cash was distributed by president’s
National Security Council, the report said.
Some senior National Security
Council officials have also been on the CIA’s payroll, and the payoffs have
only increased over time: “We paid them to overthrow the Taliban,” a US
official told the NYT.
Cash was also paid out to lesser
Afghan politicians and officials reportedly connected to drug production and
trafficking, those with alleged ties to the Taliban, and to insurgent warlords
bribed not to interfere in covert operations. “They [CIA] will work
with criminals if they think they have to,” a former US official said.
On Monday Afghan President Hamid
Karzai Monday acknowledged his office had been receiving funds from the CIA
over the past decade, but dismissed the monthly cash payments as “a small
amount,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
"Yes, the office of the national security has been receiving support from the United States for the past 10 years," the daily cites Karzai as telling reporters at a news briefing in Helsinki, Finland. "Monthly. Not a big amount. A small amount which has been used for various purposes," he continued.
"Yes, the office of the national security has been receiving support from the United States for the past 10 years," the daily cites Karzai as telling reporters at a news briefing in Helsinki, Finland. "Monthly. Not a big amount. A small amount which has been used for various purposes," he continued.
Karzai said the CIA funds had been
used on “various, operational purposes of providing assistance to the
wounded, the sick, to certain rents for houses, to all other purposes."
Neither the CIA nor the US State
Department commented on the report.
Once the invasion began in 2001 the
CIA paid cash to buy the services of numerous warlords, one of whom was
allegedly Afghanistan’s first vice president, Muhammad Qasim Fahim. Another
Afghan official on the CIA payroll was President Karzai’s half-brother Ahmed
Wali Karzai, who headed the anti-insurgent Kandahar Strike Force militia until
he was assassinated in 2011.
By late 2002 the payments were being
routed through the president’s office, allowing Karzai to buy off the warlords’
loyalty, a former presidential adviser told the NYT.
“The biggest source of corruption in
Afghanistan, was the United States,” an
anonymous US official said.
Adding to the apparently suspicious
nature of the CIA bribery program in Afghanistan, the NYT said that the
cash “does not appear to be subject to the oversight and restrictions
placed on official American aid to the country or even the CIA’s formal
assistance programs, like financing Afghan intelligence agencies.”
Starting in 2002, Iran also attempted to buy off officials
in the Karzai government, paying them in cash for assistance. The scheme
continued for a decade, but Tehran was ultimately outmatched by the Washington
in terms of sheer spending power and the standing of the US Dollar.
In 2010, leaked reports of Tehran
paying off Afghani officials forced President Karzai to acknowledge that “The
United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our
offices.” Tehran reportedly continued to pay off officials within
Karzai’s inner circle – spending about $10 million a year – until 2012, when
Karzai signed a strategic partnership deal with the US.
Iran ceased their payoffs, but the
CIA continued to buy Afghan support for its clandestine front in the War on
Terror.
In December 2012, President Karzai
criticized US tactics in Afghanistan, accusing American forces of contributing
to violence and corruption in his country: "Now whether this
corruption in Afghanistan is an accident, a byproduct of the situation in the
past 10 years or is it perpetrated also on purpose is today my main
question."
No comments:
Post a Comment