Gbagbo and Ouatarra: No retreat; No surrender?

The Bretton Woods institutions have already announced that they will not be doing business with the Laurent Gbagbo’s government. That is not surprising. Even the African Development Bank and the West African Monetary Union are under European pressure from behind the scenes to economically suffocate the government’s ability to operate and function.

I don’t blame President-elect Ouattara for smiling and saying that he will not meet and discuss with President Gbagbo for a peaceful settlement. Why should he when the behind the scenes Nicolas Sarkozy government-led international community has handed him all the cards? For all this support, I wonder what lucrative no-bid contracts are being promised behind the curtain in newly offshore oil blocks and agricultural concessions. There is nothing for free. None of this will bring lasting peace and development to the Ivorian people.

I honestly don’t know who won the November 28th Election, but widespread fraud, violence and intimidation occurred in the North. The Independent Electoral Commission must be made to give an account on those allegations. I would like to see details of the Report submitted by the initial African Union Special Envoy President Thabo Mbeki on the situation in Ivory Coast. Why was he suddenly replaced by Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who had already made his emotional outburst when he told the media that President Gbagbo should be gotten rid of by military force? I credit him for getting Candidate Ouatarra to accept the principle of an inclusive Cabinet, albeit a 75-25 percent Ouatarra-Gbagbo ratio. That is a start but not enough to reach a more balanced and negotiated settlement.

I blame the French government and certain powerful individuals carrying the label of the United Nations for drowning-out the authentic African voices of reason and measured diplomacy. They are the ones behind Candidate Ouatarra’s position of escalating this crisis towards military confrontation. Some of them masterminded this crisis by illegally certifying the electoral process to be free and fair without verifiable basis. The UN Representative never read the judgment of the Constitutional Council to establish if there was any truth to those allegations. Why should those allegations deemed credible by a Supreme Court be disregarded? Did the UN mandate in any way suspend the authority of the Supreme Court under the Constitution of the Ivory Coast as the highest dispute resolution branch of government? Furthermore, if the UN Special Representative was not satisfied with the integrity of the membership of the Constitutional Council, he should have raised the alarm and called for a re-constituted body as a prerequisite to the election.

Perhaps there were also allegations of fraud in the South or elsewhere that candidate Ouatarra wanted to have investigated. Such should form part of the investigation as well. But to simply ignore all the complaints and state that even if candidate Gbagbo’s allegations are true that it would still put candidate Ouatarra ahead is a contempt for due process of law and has put the prestige and office of the UN in legal jeopardy. That extra-judicial determination by the UN Special Representative is a judgment only to be made by a Court after consideration of the evidence.

The South Korean UN Special Representative and his principal, Ban Ki Moon have to save face and may lack the courage to acknowledge the error and take remedial steps to reverse the certification. This would entail the launch of an independent investigation where evidence is collected and presented to the Constitutional Court with the opportunity given both sides to present their case for reconsideration under the watchful eyes of a more broad-based international community. There is also the ECOWAS Community Court in Abuja as well as the African Human Rights Court in Banjul Gambia –all of which are invested with jurisdiction. This would also require President Gbagbo to withdraw his claim to the Presidency and submit himself to the process for an internationally-backed independent investigation as well as that of Candidate Ouatarra. I know this maybe unlikely but the process needs transparency, accountability, and fairness under law. That is what either side would lack if either men storm their way into the Presidency without legal sanctification. Instead of constant political threats and clandestine military maneuvers, it is the legal avenue that this conflict is missing.                                             

Let’s build and not subvert African Institutions! 

The UN is still a cause for hope for millions of progressive peoples who yearn to be truly free from neocolonial bondage. However, it has been appropriated by a small group of countries. Being a work in progress, we in Africa and in this region must wake up and not look to the UN as a panacea or the only road to prosperity and democratic electoral governance. The UN cannot do for us that which we are capable of doing for ourselves. Yes, we often fail but Africa is free and we must keep trying until we do it right.

The UN has done some good work in Liberia as a facilitator of peace but there are other places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo where a conflict exists with deep historical and international dimensions- where the UN perpetuates the very problem it came to relieve. The UN should never fill the void of indigenous leadership created when there is an African conflict. The UN was not created with Africa in mind. Authentic regional institutions should do that with the temporary financial and logistical facilitation of the UN and other well meaning multilateral institutions. It is not the forum to resolve any conflict in Africa.

As an organization, the UN cannot bring peace to conflicts that its very core founders mischievously constructed. The Kenyan post election crisis and violence in December 2007 did not lead to UN-sponsored military intervention. That crisis was averted by a Non-UN group of African Eminent Persons including Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, Graca Michel-Mandela and other regional leaders. Despite the snickering, here is a good example of African solutions for African problems. It is an experience for sober reflection by all Africans of good will and well-meaning international friends.

Yes, it is true that the UN was invited by the Ivorian Government to broker peace between Government forces and the Northern Rebels under the Ouagadougou Peace Agreement in March 2007. However that Agreement did not suspend the Constitution of Ivory Coast. The sovereignty of the Ivorian nation remained and still does. I am not aware on any legal basis for any assertion about Ivory Coast losing its sovereignty. Everyone is familiar with the statement in Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter which states that nothing in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction, except where there are enforcement measures under Chapter VII.  The mandate of UNOCI under Security Council resolution 1765 is for the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Côte d’Ivoire “to  certify that all stages of the electoral process provide all the necessary guarantees for the holding of open, free, fair and transparent presidential and legislative elections in accordance with international standards…”

Isn’t this a periodic and procedural process that demands certification at various stages of the electoral processes as opposed to a mere end-of-voting and counting certification event? Is the UNOCI authorized to make military threats or to mobilize support for military intervention and unbridled interference in the domestic domain of a state? Furthermore, article 2 (4) states that all UN members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Another outstanding question left to be determined is whether the UN Special Representative Mr. Y.J Choi was in any position to properly certify that all stages of the Ivorian November 28th electoral process were free and fair and conducted to international standards. The United Nations Secretary General owes an explanation to the world and Africa in particular on these questions. A careful perusal of the wording of Security Council Resolution 1765 and the Ouagadougou Peace Accords stipulate that a series of measures were to precede the holding of national elections in order to meet the required international standards. These measures include: the creation of a new Transitional Government; organizing free and fair presidential elections; merging the Forces Nouvelles and the National Defense and Security forces through the establishment of an integrated command centre; dismantling the militias, disarming ex-combatants and enrolling them in civil services programs and replacing the so-called zone of confidence separating north and south with a green line to be monitored by UNOCI. All this was to be done in coordination between the Government, Rebels, UNOCI and the French Military Forces in the Country. From the very outset, the AU and ECOWAS should have raised the alarm that the French military be excluded from these agreements. Suffice it to say that there are too many military interests in the mix to achieve the desired outcomes. I really don’t know what anyone can say to justify the presence of French military in an independent Ivory Coast.
     
Notwithstanding all the threats of military intervention by an ECOWAS/AU force, the Security Council after a number of meetings has stopped short of authorizing such a force. The UNSC is divided because Russia and China are unwilling to join their hawkish colleagues among the five permanent members and would veto any such enterprise. South Africa as a rotating member has also refrained from supporting the military option and has also voiced concern about certain electoral discrepancies. What is even clearer is that the constant threat of military force is not legitimate under international law and has not had any effect on the de facto President of Ivory Coast. It has failed as an effective instrument of negotiation. Meanwhile these threats only terrorize the innocent people of the region, escalating a humanitarian disaster of internally displaced persons, further sending the regional macro-economic conditions downwards and reinforcing a pretext for military adventurism. The people of the region do not deserve this kind of dishonest leadership.            

There must be no war in Ivory Coast. No elected President or election is worth the life of one more African child. We must confront injustice by every other means than through violence, whether state violence, international-sponsored violence or rebellion. It is equally immoral to stir up the sentiments of the people and send them as human shields to storm buildings manned by soldiers who are only trained to resolve disputes with a fire arm. These militaries of Africa are trained to kill people and destroy property. They were not instituted to respect human rights and tolerance.

Civil war is not an option and anyone calling for that does not have the interest of the people in their hearts. You cannot isolate approximately half of your population, send them into exile and achieve the development goals of the nation. We need every intellectual capital on board, to debate, discuss, and move the national and regional development agenda forward. Let us move in that direction to a place not to settle old scores and tribal rivalry but where post election development can take place dealing with some of the major national issues such as constitutional reform, electoral reform, land reform, human rights and regional integration.

Only the legacy of Kenya’s spirit of reconciliation should be carried from Kenya and East Africa to Ivory Coast and West Africa.

Let’s think long-term and take Ownership of our Governance

Although electoral governance is the internationally-accepted, it has its limitations. It has never undone the manipulated ethnic conflicts that were sown many years ago across Africa for the commercial interest of Europe. Every former direct colonial state in Africa still has its portion of these internal conflicts which continue to be the major cause of national strife, poverty and underdevelopment. These conflicts are sharply reflected every four or five years or whenever elections are due in African states. The mismanagement and mal-governance of these ethnic diversities have been the cause of so much conflict on the continent that a way finally needs to be found to transform these false political dichotomies with a tailor-managed and shared consensus-building and decision-making system.

This system will finally provide the basis for the extraction of the huge reservoir of benefits within this multiplicity of diversities. Its aim will be to provide greater participatory governance and away from tribal electoral governance. Then we can transform our diversity into a source of peace, prosperity and unity under a post election political coalition for development. That is the challenge of all of us and in particular the AU which is the only institution that was created to grapple with such an issue.

Electoral governance as practiced in the West does not work well in the African heterogeneous environments and so we must be bold enough to offer new solutions of governance that recognizes this challenge. It must be acknowledged that the Ivorian post election crisis can and will happen more and more in all of the loosely put together African states including populous countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, DRC, and others.

We cannot take the route of creating more and more land-locked independent states in Africa as the solution. An informed strategy needs to be put in place after a continent-wide dialogue that will consider various options towards the long journey of building African bridges of unity and common prosperity. What is taking place in the Ivory Coast is the unraveling of the patriotic one-party state comprising mainly of the Southern ethnic groups held together by the late strong-man President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, using French money and military. As many of these post colonial leaders are dying out and many of the family dynasties are under threat by popular demand for greater participatory governance, a deep void is created which exposes the absence of credible institutions of governance.  So let’s not kid ourselves about the falling apart of Ivory Coast because it is inevitable to occur in other parts of Africa as well.

The African Union must step up, fill the void and become more involved in the governance policy direction even if it is to conduct elections itself in some of these states until credible institutions can be established. To do nothing is to allow another African surrogate government to be hatched between Washington and Europe to fill that void for another generation or two.

By Nkrumah M. Mulmi Esq
Nairobi, Kenya.