France and the Ivory Coast

Remove all ads!

I was just wondering if there were any opinions out there on the French military operations taking place in the Ivory Coast. Or if anyone really cared.

 

Wasn't aware of them - can you provide a link or a basic rundown of things? I'll Google it in the meantime.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/07/ivory.coast/

Well I found this one. Haven't had the time to read it through yet and I'm heading to sleep now so I'll be leaving the comments on the subject for others.

 

Seems to be a horrible mess but for once the French doesnt seem completely to blame as they were attacked. Now they pretty much seems to be trying to get the **** out of Dodge before things get even worse.

 

Well, what is the idea of having UN-peacekeeping soldiers, if they are not able to fight back if attacked? Or should the UN go back to the idiotic UNPROFOR-style they showed in the early balkans?

 

Sounds a bit one sided to me. The question I would ask is "Why did the planes attack the French position near Bouake?" Seems unlikely that it was an unprovoked attack, especially after a cease-fire. Unless the pilots were acting independently.

 

The radio report I heard was that the French were peacekeeping in rebel-occupied territory when they were attacked. Whether this was a pilot error (wrong target) I don't know, but the report also said that the french destroyed the air force (What, all of it!) in retaliation.

 

I think they called it a 'premptive strike' actually. The best way to stop an enemy from air-striking you is to simply wipe out their ability to strike from the air... I guess. Looks like this'll be the first war France won't surrender in.

 

Was the U.N. consulted???

Is this a violation of international law (assuming you believe such a thing exists)???

You would think in this post-Sadaam era all the peace-loving nations of the world could solve all the problems through dialogue and open discussion. To act so unilaterally is almost war-like and so shameful that I may never eat a loaf of french-bread again. I hope they set up a fund to compensate all of the innocent civilians and their families that their war of aggression is harming.

If only the French had consulted President Bush before acting who knows how many needless deaths could have been avoided. Yet another stain on the reputation of our European brothers.

 

Snook - That's hilarious.

 

Let's see...
Civil war breaks out, France goes in with UN backing to settle things as peacefully as possible between loyalists and rebels.
Fragile cease-fire ensues.
Multinational peacekeeping for with UN backing is sent.
Things appear to calm down a bit.
Loyalists break UN cease-fire and use airforce to attack rebels.
French troops killed in the process.
UN authorises France to use "all necessary means" to stop the renewed fighting.
France destroys IC's airforce.
Loyalists urge mobs to hunt for white blood.

Scenario 1:
France stays.
America: "No blood for cocoa, omfg evil French imperialists!"
Ivory coast: chaos, economic ruin, civil war, genocide.

Scenario 2:
France pulls out.
Americans: "Hahaha surrender monkeys!"
Ivory coast: more chaos, economic ruin, civil war and genocide.

In either case: the world is yet a little bit more ****ed up.

 

If only, Tal, if only...

Besides, wasn't being serious. In the post before I stated that there wasn't enough information to pass judgement. The report said it was a pre-emptive strike and if the Americans can use that, I guess the French can.

However, the fact that the population are running around looking for French blood means that something serious must have happened in the past or some very persuasive people are pulling the strings.

 

To understand the situation in Ivory Coast one has to look at the constant stream of anti-french propaganda from the Gbagbo government. Reportedly Gbagbo's government forces have violated the negotiated ceasefire by smuggling arms. That means, they prepared for and wanted to continue fighting against the north, and the french peacekeepers were in their way.

While in Ivory Coast a franco-german friend of my bro was not beaten up and only robbed by pro Gbagbo goons because he chose to travel with his German passport. The Gbagbo gvt blames France conveniently for all maladies that plague the country, including their own corruption. Nevermind it's french investment that keeps Ivory Coast alive.

And as for the UN resolution -- that is underway.

When jolly Georgie Porgie boasted in his election campaign that the US wouldn't wait for anybody to allow the US self defence he was, as usual, misleading. The UN charter does not say that. In fact, no one sais that.
Instead, the UN charter in Art.51 explicitly states any country's right for self defense. The point in Iraq was that it wasn't ... self-defense but preventive war. But nevermind the facts.

France is in Ivory Coast as part of a peacekeeping force under a peace accord negotiated in France under France's mediation. The situation doesn't demand a UN resolution to place them there. This bilateral peace accord is all France needs to send troops there.
The reason why France is going to the UN is to cut off arms sales, say by Ukraine, to Ivory Coast rather than to get empowerd for anything.

In Ivory Coast France acted not in prevention but in retaliation. Big difference. How prudent or imprudent that was is another thing.

Generally, the French in Africa have been got along quite well with swift retaliation for provocations - in Africa opponents think twice about even trying. Mr. Gbagbo must be quite self confident to do so. That tells me he won't die old.

[ November 17, 2004, 14:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I certainly wouldn't want to be at the business end of the Legionnaires -- those dudes are serious. I find it ironic that France moved in with such force so quickly especially after the stink they raised with the US. But I don't think anyone in the US really has the right to question the act.

As far as UN is concerned, France (mainly the Legionnaires) has been the only country to respond to every request by the UN (they're just responding a bit in advance here).

 

The key difference is that the French were *invited* by the warring fractions as a result of a consensus reached in negotiations and landed there without resistance - where the others just thought that they would be greeted with flowers, gave a **** about negotiations and had to shoot their way into a mess of their making, oblivious to what they conjured up there.

So, honestly, I don't really see it as similarities, rather like an entirely different story

 

A french officer stated that UN had not given them the mandate to attempt to stop the planes.