Dear President Mbeki: The United Nations Helped Save the Ivory Coast

By sticking to internationally recognized principles, the U.N. was able to restore the rule of law in the embattled West African state.

BY VIJAY NAMBIAR | AUGUST 17, 2011

President Thabo Mbeki has presented an inaccurate account of recent events in the Ivory Coast, and his defence of former President Laurent Gbagbo's attempt to thwart the will of the Ivorian people is surprising.

When Mr. Gbagbo's mandate expired in 2005, Ivorians, African leaders, and the international community invested five years in finding a political solution. Through the Pretoria Agreement, signed in 2005 under President Mbeki's auspices, and the Ouagadougou Political Agreement (2007), the Ivorian parties assumed full ownership of the peace process. It was they who dictated the pace, timelines, and solutions to any obstacles.

Ivory Coast's 2010 president election had been postponed several times owing to inadequate progress toward disarmament and reunification. Last August, however, Mr. Gbagbo, acting without any external pressure, signed a decree setting Oct. 31, 2010, as the date for the first round of the vote. This step was endorsed by all relevant actors, who recognized that any further delay could itself have caused violence.

The first round was a milestone. Mr. Gbagbo, who emerged as the leading candidate, expressed his appreciation to the special representative of the U.N. secretary general for his role in certifying the election results.

The second round was held on Nov. 28, and the U.N Special Representative Choi Young-Jin followed the same agreed-upon certification procedure he had used for the first round. His analysis agreed with the Independent Electoral Commission, which declared Alassane Ouattara the winner.

The special representative also determined that the results proclaimed by the Constitutional Council, which gave "victory" to Mr. Gbagbo, were not based on facts, and that the council had arbitrarily nullified results from the north, thereby disenfranchising a large portion of the population. The special representative also indicated that, even if Mr. Gbagbo's complaints had been found valid, Ouattara would still be the winner. ECOWAS and the African Union (AU), the chief regional organizations of West Africa, supported the certification by the special representative and endorsed the results announced by the Electoral Commission.

The legal basis for the U.N. certification mandate is derived from the Pretoria Agreement and subsequent Declaration on the Implementation of the Pretoria Agreement. Ivorians themselves were keenly aware that elections were likely to take place in an environment of mistrust and lack of confidence in the relevant institutions, and so turned to the United Nations as an impartial presence. The United Nations is proud to have fulfilled its role in accordance with the relevant international agreements.  

In the course of the crisis, some called for a recount. Yet the idea behind a recount was to pave the way for a "negotiated political solution" that would have led to a power-sharing arrangement, a solution that President Mbeki seemed to favor -- but which would have set a dangerous precedent for the continent and undermined the principles of democracy.  There should be zero tolerance for desperate acts by rulers seeking to stay in power against the will of the people.

The post-election violence was a direct result of Mr. Gbagbo's refusal to accept defeat and his repeated rejection of all efforts to find a peaceful solution. Security forces loyal to him used heavy weapons against civilians in communities perceived as strongholds of President Ouattara, against U.N. peacekeepers, and against supporters of Ouattara at the Golf Hotel in Abidjan, which was during the crisis the temporary seat of the legitimate government.

Acting with the unanimous support of the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. Operation in Cote D'Ivoire (UNOCI) undertook limited military operations, strictly within the bounds of its mandate, to protect civilians. It did not, at any stage, seek to stop or facilitate military gains by any side. Throughout the crisis, UNOCI has undertaken every effort to implement its mandate in an impartial manner and protect civilians irrespective of their political affiliation. Just as the mission provided security at the Golf Hotel, so it is currently providing security to Mr. Gbagbo and more than 50 officials of his Front populaire ivoirien (FPI).

The impartiality of the United Nations does not mean neutrality. Its peacekeepers had a responsibility to act in the face of possible grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. President Mbeki claims that the crisis confirms the marginalization of the African Union. In fact, the AU refused to allow itself to be used as a vehicle for an unconstitutional grab for power, thereby heightening its legitimacy.

The ultimate vindication of the principled position taken by ECOWAS, the AU, and the United Nations came from the Ivorian Constitutional Council itself. On May 5, President Yao N'Dre set aside the fabricated results announced five months earlier, proclaimed President Ouattara the legitimate winner, and swore him into office the next day.

Elections, on their own, will never be a panacea for the root causes of conflict. National reconciliation in the Ivory Coast will not be easy, but the country is on the right track toward reclaiming its role as the pillar of stability in the sub-region. African leaders who wish to play a constructive role may begin by offering support to that country as it moves forward rather than trying to reorder facts or rewrite history.

SIA KAMBOU/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Vijay Nambiar is the chef de cabinet in the executive office of the U.N. Secretary General.

CHRISAK

12:04 AM ET

August 18, 2011

Nice try

The author of this piece claims that "the post-election violence was a direct result of Mr. Gbagbo's refusal to accept defeat and his repeated rejection of all efforts to find a peaceful solution."

I would have let this statement die in peace (regardless of the fact that I find it viciously rhetorical--since I fail to see what made Gbagbo's refusal a more "direct" cause than anyone else's behavior from a logical perspective). But I was bugged when I realized that it was immediately preceded by the following: "In the course of the crisis, some called for a recount. Yet the idea behind a recount was to pave the way for a 'negotiated political solution' that would have led to a power-sharing arrangement, a solution that President Mbeki seemed to favor -- but which would have set a dangerous precedent for the continent and undermined the principles of democracy. There should be zero tolerance for desperate acts by rulers seeking to stay in power against the will of the people." [end quote]

Now, I think this is telling of the cognitive-dissonance-free, self-congratulatory mentality that the UN adopted in Cote d'Ivoire... The author of this piece does not even seem to realize from one paragraph to the other that, according to his own text, to be fair, it is not so much that Gbagbo rejected ALL efforts at a peaceful solution, but rather that the UN rejected SOME of those which Gbagbo may have favored--specifically, the "recount" and "power-sharing" options. (And this is no distinction without a difference...)

So why did the UN reject the latter options? He tells us: because it "would have set a dangerous precedent for the continent and undermined the principles of democracy."

First of all, the "precedent" had already been set several times before--with better outcomes in some cases (certainly in terms of deadly post-election violence). We may all have mixed feelings about Kenya's precedent (not to mention Zimbabwe's, of course), but the fact remains: power-sharing in Cote d'Ivoire would not have set a precedent on the continent; and there is good reason to believe it would have led to fewer deaths.

But let's speak of democracy. The author of the piece observes superficially that there was a great deal of mistrust between the parties regarding the electoral process. The superficial conclusion follows: the UN was called in to serve as a neutral judge.

I won't polemicize on whether the UN can in fact be neutral; but it is clear that, at several points in the Ivorian crisis, the UN was not perceived as being neutral by one party or the other (usually Gbagbo's). And the importance of this fact echoes that of another: those elections were supposed to be organized ULTIMATELY in order for both parties to recognize a winner, NOT in order for the "International Community" to recognize a winner... If we focus on the question of political self-determination (which is what elections are all about I would think), and put aside for one moment the issue of intervention in the name of human rights (which became most relevant only later), we ought to recognize that the role of the UN in electoral contests can never seriously be that of a JUDGE if we are to be serious about the international system. Rather its role is more akin to that of a doula or midwife... It is not, by analogy, to somehow decide for the mother or her husband when the child should be born, or that the child was born... That the UN misunderstood this key role is why, in my opinion, Mbeki's criticism of the organization was spot on...

From this perspective, by simply dismissing the option of a recount, and substituting its position for the parties' on this key question, given the level of mistrust and the risk of violence, the UN was simply reckless. It seemed to me far more eager to claim the success of the electoral process it had helped organize than to help resolve the core crisis--which was the collapse of trust between the parties.

To that point: the UN was called in not just because of mistrust regarding the electoral process but because of mistrust regarding deeper issues which culminated in civil war following a 2002 rebellion--which rebellion interrupted Gbagbo's legally-recognized mandate, took half of his country hostage and was promptly recognized by France (in the name of the "legitimacy of force," as I think De Villepin called it) and eventually the UN. It is hard not to imagine Gbagbo's supporters wondering why the "power-sharing" accommodation that followed was good enough when it came to the demands of the Ouattara-related rebels but seemed immediately intolerable when it came to theirs--even though (or perhaps, sadly, BECAUSE), in fact, they had been far less violent (in terms of numbers of deaths caused, at least) over those 10 years... I guess the author of this piece did not either find THAT local "precedent" sufficiently dangerous or bad for democracy--or maybe he subconsciously assumed that THAT illegal act was somehow justified or excused or no longer relevant...

Certainly, the UN cannot contribute to the national reunification of any country by applying different standards to different parties in the same crisis... Why does one party's alleged crimes against populations justify the use of force or prosecution when the other's do not (e.g., Abidjan vs. Duekoue)... In fact, the process currently under way to bring Gbagbo and his associates to justice (that same process which the author of this piece congratulates the UN for supporting by providing "security" to--i.e., GUARDING--the political prisoners) has little credibility precisely because of these double-standards...

In the end, Mbeki said far more than the author of the piece was willing and/or able to address... I personally think Gbagbo has been on balance no worse than Ouattara, but the crucial point is that it was not for the UN to decide who was better... The UN was only to accompany a process which no magic bullet could have resolved... Instead, precisely by mistaking the (however-imperfect) electoral process for just that--a magic bullet, and by attending to some laws and claims while selectively rejecting others (as if it were a judge), the UN did far more, and far worse...

 

BIDHAAN

5:31 AM ET

August 18, 2011

What about Somaliland MR Mbeki ?

Somaliland has solid legal grounds to become an independent state. Somaliland's case don't violate the African Charter which calls for the respect of colonial borders, Somaliland inherits the borders of the Somaliland British Protectorate. Somaliland was briefly an independent country recognised by UK and other Commonwealth countries from 26 June until Somaliland voluntarily united with the former Italian colony of Somalia on July 1st 1960.

Somaliland has stablished itself as a beacon of peace in a region known only to be instable and war-ravaged. Somaliland's coast line is safe from Piracy. Somalialnd enjoys peaceful coiexistance with its neighbouring countries namely Ethiopia and Djibouti.

Somaliland has a credible democratically elected governments, one of few in the African continent.

Somaliland deserves to be recognised for its history as an independent country and for its home ground institutions. The world should reward good governance and encourage democracy in Africa, hence support Somaliland.

 

GEOKS

3:56 PM ET

August 18, 2011

This is the best UN can come up with?

On the same day of Ouattara's inauguration, his soldiers massacred refugees returning home naively believing his reconciliation slogan. Four months passed while the nonstop retribution of Ouattara continues. Hasn't there been a UN murder half a century ago of Patrice Lumumba? History always repeats itself.

 

MADCLIVE

12:33 PM ET

September 15, 2011

A really good article

Nice article. Some really good points made about The United Nations Helped Save the Ivory Coast , I agree with some of them. Thanks for the quality articles which entertainers many views and opinions, helping me learn things. Kindest regards, Mad DJ Clive

 

LORRINE156

9:08 AM ET

September 17, 2011

Dear President Mbeki: The United Nations Helped Save the Ivory C

By sticking to internationally recognized principles, the U.N. was able to restore the rule of law in the embattled West African state. The author of this piece claims that "the post-election violence was a direct result of Mr. Gbagbo's refusal to accept defeat and his repeated rejection of all efforts to find a peaceful solution." I would have let this statement die in peace (regardless of the fact that I find it viciously rhetorical--since I fail to see what made Gbagbo's refusal a more "direct" cause than anyone else's behavior go here Somaliland has solid legal grounds to become an independent state. Somaliland's case don't violate the African Charter which calls for the respect of colonial borders, Somaliland inherits the borders of the Somaliland British Protectorate. Somaliland was briefly an independent country recognised by UK and other Commonwealth countries from 26 June until Somaliland voluntarily united with the former

 

PETERBEXLEY

11:54 AM ET

September 17, 2011

UN?

Just read the article. I found it very informative and agree with posts and points made above. Peter.