Irresponsibility International
in Côte d'Ivoire
or
The usefulness of walking on the head
by
Alexander Gerbi
OF already, and indeed for many years, blood flows in Côte d'Ivoire.
Obviously, Côte d'Ivoire is a can of worms. Regardless of the recent election where many malignant Micmac who can say where the truth is, the country's general situation is explosive. Because this country is changing demographics, the North South traditionally beyond one master of the political game. Phenomenon from which it follows, necessarily, tensions. Now both sides are now, until proven otherwise, balanced forces. The ingredients are gathered for a major shock, and it must be feared, durable.
In such conditions of fact, the least we could expect from the international community, especially France with its innumerable pots and infamous "FranCafrican" (I prefer to say "racists", the term seemed more accurate), was a benevolent and cautious neutrality, consistent with the principle of non interference, but also the rhetoric of Nicolas Sarkozy at the end of the system françafricain.
France, and traditional major player on the continent and especially in the sub-region, should have prompted the world to promote dialogue between the two (or three ...) parties that compete, including weapons, power last ten years. Facing U.S. support Alassane Ouattara and desperate to help him gain power, France would have had a perfect view, but dynamic neutrality.
Instead, with the international community (or rather the West, its organs and vassals), France fully supports Ouattara, Gbagbo condemned and threatened, pushed and in doing so for days, the first and his supporters on the offensive against the latter, with the huge risks of escalation of civil war and eventually perhaps, ultimately, the country's final score. And here now, ECOWAS itself obviously linked to France and the United States, plans to intervene militarily ...
Whatever the means chosen, if civil war or the war itself (or both captain) being announced in Côte d'Ivoire would eventually take place if the balance would be $ in thousands, Tens of thousands of casualties or more, the international community will do does not have a major responsibility? Without
concluded from this, of course, that Laurent Gbagbo is a holy man (how he died on his conscience?) Or Alassane Ouattara is not the winner of the elections (the alliance with Henri Konan Bedie Did not he not secured a majority plausible?), is it so difficult to see that, beyond lip service and other professions of faith in favor of democracy, the general situation and objective (and, for once very real ...) the country is complex as an explosive, and it's mostly dialogue towards a national unity government that Côte d'Ivoire needs?
Instead of pushing the crime Ouattara and Gbagbo and their supporters, why not encourage them to deal? Especially since the international pressure on Gbagbo had, nevertheless, the positive effect of pushing the person to open dialogue with its opponent ... Why did the international community does not like the Vatican, before the ball?
In such conditions of fact, the least we could expect from the international community, especially France with its innumerable pots and infamous "FranCafrican" (I prefer to say "racists", the term seemed more accurate), was a benevolent and cautious neutrality, consistent with the principle of non interference, but also the rhetoric of Nicolas Sarkozy at the end of the system françafricain.
France, and traditional major player on the continent and especially in the sub-region, should have prompted the world to promote dialogue between the two (or three ...) parties that compete, including weapons, power last ten years. Facing U.S. support Alassane Ouattara and desperate to help him gain power, France would have had a perfect view, but dynamic neutrality.
Instead, with the international community (or rather the West, its organs and vassals), France fully supports Ouattara, Gbagbo condemned and threatened, pushed and in doing so for days, the first and his supporters on the offensive against the latter, with the huge risks of escalation of civil war and eventually perhaps, ultimately, the country's final score. And here now, ECOWAS itself obviously linked to France and the United States, plans to intervene militarily ...
Whatever the means chosen, if civil war or the war itself (or both captain) being announced in Côte d'Ivoire would eventually take place if the balance would be $ in thousands, Tens of thousands of casualties or more, the international community will do does not have a major responsibility? Without
concluded from this, of course, that Laurent Gbagbo is a holy man (how he died on his conscience?) Or Alassane Ouattara is not the winner of the elections (the alliance with Henri Konan Bedie Did not he not secured a majority plausible?), is it so difficult to see that, beyond lip service and other professions of faith in favor of democracy, the general situation and objective (and, for once very real ...) the country is complex as an explosive, and it's mostly dialogue towards a national unity government that Côte d'Ivoire needs?
Instead of pushing the crime Ouattara and Gbagbo and their supporters, why not encourage them to deal? Especially since the international pressure on Gbagbo had, nevertheless, the positive effect of pushing the person to open dialogue with its opponent ... Why did the international community does not like the Vatican, before the ball?
For five years, would it not worthwhile to work to stabilize the country against a backdrop of national healing and reconciliation for the benefit of its economic and social development, while preparing for 2015 elections in conditions, finally, complete transparency?
On the road to democracy, are we then to nearly five years, even cause a disaster?
But we believe it is useful for some to walk on the head ...
Alexander Gerbi
0 comments:
Post a Comment