 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
On topic:
The French intervention in Ivory Coast has strongly to do with two things:
1. Keep order in the world's 1st exporter of Cocoa. Which has been the shopping window of our neocolonial empire for decades, incidentally.
2. Avoid a new Rwanda, which was a serious possibility.
Those are the reason we have 4000 troops there in the first place (since late 2002 IIRC, i.e. two whole years before the near-war of last november). The reason why we attacked the loyalist air force and occupied Abijan was because the loyalists have pushed their luck, and were breaking the cease fire our troops were enforcing. Abijan also ran the risk of being overrun by young looyalist maximalists, that would have been a great risk for French citizens there.
What the Monde Diplo (a very left wing source, if I may add  ) won't say is that the French intervention in Ivory Coast is not the old brand of neocolonialism, only more blatant. For France, it's a first, and a step in the right direction. Let me explain:
- We used to know and bribe pretty much every African leader, and thus most of them were sympathetic to France (strong personal networks). Here, Gbagbo is an ideologue, that wants Ivory Coast real independence. Save for Congo's Kabila 8who wasn't an ideologue, but a whore of another country), we never encountered such a thing in our neocolonial past.
- We used to install the African leaders we wanted, and to back them with direct military intervention. Had we been in the old days, we'd have occupied Abijan as soon as the operation had begun, and we'd have replaced Gbagbo with whatever pawn was convenient.
- Instead, we pushed for negociations between the two sides. We attempted to take the demands of both sides into account, to work on a tolerable compromise. We also use the help of the African Union in maintaning the demarcation line.
- As candid as it can seem, I think a strong reason for the intervention is a moral one. After the Rwandan genocide, it seems there has been a real feeling of guilt and disgust that swept through the French leadership. Of course, the fact we sold weapons to a regime that had prepared the genocide for years had something to do with it. IMO, many diplomats and leaders couldn't accept the idea of a genocide happening in the former shopping window of our empire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The Ivorian "governemnt" is run by a brutal military dictator who has lost control over much of the country. The French negotiated a cease fire between the government and the rebels which the government alost immdediately violated by massacring civilians in a raid on rebel held areas. The French peace keepers intervined and the government forces started shooting at the French soldiers so the French responded by bombing the **** out of most of the government buildings and military sites. Pretty reasonable really.
Now the government backers hate the French and claim they have sided with the rebels. |
As much as I oppose Gbagbo, much of this post is false:
1. Laurent Gbagbo was democratically elected. His background is one of a civilian politician (he learned with the French Socialists), and not of a military leader poised on getting power. Laurent Gbagbo can be brutal, but I don't think he is significantly more brutal than any other African leader. The real risk of genocide doesn't really come from him, it comes from his supporters, many of them are blinded by a jingoistic fury.
2. The cease fire has been upheld for months. During the last one year and a half (when the compromise was signed), there were rebel leaders in the joint government for most of the time. Last november saw a gambit of Gbagbo's: he thought he could scare France off Ivory Coast, by attacking a French base (thus showing the French they could die too), and by letting his loyalists nearly riot in the streets of Abijan. The plan failed, but it wasn't entirely unreasonable.
3. The government backers hate the French, mostly because they see France as rearing its nose in matters they consider to be only theirs (neocolonialism). Many think they could win a definitive victory against the rebels (let's call them "the north", which would be more accurate), if their hands weren't tied by France.
The reason is, as usual in African politics, maximalism. There is very little culture of compromise in African countries, and this is the reason why so many civil wars have occured. Heck, as recently as this week, each of the candidates in the Togo election declared themselves president! 
This is why it is so hard to find a workable compromise, because nobody wants to compromise. I think the Rebels have now come to back France (it wasn't always the case), because they see they have got more out of the agreement than they could have fought for. The loyalists hate the agreement because they feel shafted (their position in the agreement doesn't mirror their perceived strength), and because it's being enforced by the hated neocolonial France.
The situation is complex.
Last edited by Spiffor on 06-05-2005 at 14:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
You can't seem to discuss anything but Iraq KH.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
Ahh but this is stupid. You could never compare Iraq and Ivory Coast. What a stupid comparison. War = War!11 hey it's the same every time!
FFL has been in there doing a great job, making decent kills all the time. There have been some rebel activity for some time now, and it was starting to look like a serious matter when they were advancing, even though they were not professional and just wild youngsters mostly, they were becoming a serious freaking risk.
FFL came in, took the positions, kicked ass and now secures some areas. FFL is very pro, if I had to trust my city to someone, I'd trust it to FFL and no one else first. But they are pro soldiers, so, they are not going to lose the pig hitting contest if there will be one. It's just a fact.
You kill 9 peacekeepers, and the FFL happens to be there, you'll be in deep **** soon. That's the government decision, who controls FFL. If they keep them in there, in peacekeeping duties, **** might happen. You don't go and send your spearhead to peacekeeping missions, who are in the state of ready 24/7 to go anywhere in the world and kick ass against anyone. Throw them in peacekeeping mission, then have someone kill some peacekeepers, you're bound to have problems. They are a fighting machine, not a paper pushing machine.
But of course this is not the only mission they are on right now, just one of them. And FFL has experience in Africa and conflicts in Africa, so I doubt they will be changed there.
But I wouldn't be worried about it, they are not wild cowboys. Extremely professional, but with action seeking brains. Meaning, if there's a reason to act, they will. If a rebel gives them a reason to start shooting, they will. And rather than thinking there's now hundreds of dudes, prolly on drugs, former murderers and criminals, coming to kill people where ever they are, being unprofessional and not saluting anyone, you couldn't be much more wrong. Rather think about the most professional striking force in the world and you come close. Yes, and professional and sophisticated striking force. They train the most and they're hardcore badasses.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2005 12:10
|