| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Africa: West | |
| France Seeks U.N. Forces in Ivory Coast | |
| 2004-01-18 | |
| France introduced a resolution calling for a 6,240-strong U.N. peacekeeping force in war-divided Ivory Coast, but the United States on Friday expressed reservations about the size and said it wants to examine the justification for the deployment. "Marvin! Front and center! What the hell are the French doing now?! "Well sir, they’re getting all unilateral again." "Would it pay for us to remind the world of French hypocrisy?" "Coals to Newscastle, sir." Ivory Coast’s nine-month civil war officially ended in July, but the nation remains divided between rebel-held north and government-held south. A 2003 peace process brokered in France has never fully taken hold and more than 4,000 French and 1,000 West African troops are Plus a couple of doctors to keep the French cathouses clean. "We have some reservations about the numbers," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Friday. "We had heard much lower numbers earlier on, so we really want to take a hard look at that." Tell me, Marvin, who’s paying for this august little venture?" "Guess, sir." "Seems to me the French can cut this sucker in half." The United States also wants to study Annan’s report to the Security Council earlier this month justifying the deployment of U.N. troops, Negroponte said. Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo and West African leaders have urged the United Nations to take over the West African peacekeeping mission. "It’s easier to smack the Uruguayans around!" In the report, the secretary-general said West African peacekeepers are overstretched and requests for more money from donor nations haven’t been answered. "Marvin, turn off the spigot on this one." "Already done, sir." But Annan said his recommendation for a U.N. force was contingent on the rebels and government showing progress in getting the peace process back on track by Feb. 4. Oh. What’s all the fuss about then? They won’t be talking until The draft resolution would authorize the U.N. force to monitor the cease-fire and assist the transitional power-sharing government in disarming and repatriating the former combatants. It would also help the government extend its authority throughout the country and prepare for elections in 2005. The government’s authority was doing pretty well until the French undermined it.
"I don’t think we need to rush into this one, Mr. Secretary." "Reading my mind as usual, Marvin." | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 ARGH, I meant to edit the message better than that, but accidentally hit the wrong key twice. What I meant was: Replying to Stephen again in #14: Can you tell me which of Cote d'Ivoire's neighbors support which sides in the conflict, so when they send "peacekeepers" I'll be able to figure out which side will win the resulting "peace"? |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-18 9:08:03 PM |
| #15 Replying to Stephen again in #14: OK... just so I know who's going to get to live in peace and who's going to die a bloody death in the peace, can you tell me which of Cote d'Ivoire's neighbors support which sides in the conflict, so when they send "peacekeepers" I'll be able to figure out which side will win the resulting "peace"? |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-18 9:06:26 PM |
| #14 Reply to #13 Phil:No,but it doesn't matter.For "peacekeeping" in Africa,African troops are preferred to avoid perception that Africa can't handle its own problems.Second choice is other third world countries-all of whom make money for their governments,because UN payment for peacekeepers far exceeds what African/Third World pays their troops. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-1-18 5:58:18 PM |
| #13 Reply to #11 Stephen: Most of the troops would be from Africa? Are there any semi-decent troops available from the region that have any sort of neutrality in the conflict to start with? |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-18 5:15:01 PM |
| #12 Frank G.: Or not. "December 30, 2002 Abidjan The situation in western Cote d'Ivoire remains volatile despite the presence of French and loyalist troops, according to reports from news organisations and humanitarian sources, which also say that essential services are not functioning in parts of the area." (snip) In another development, rebels of the Mouvement Populaire Ivoirien du Grand Ouest (MPIGO) who met on Monday with French troops deployed in the western town of Duekoue on Monday said an exchange of fire between the two sides on Sunday was a mistake, AFP reported. "This meeting enabled them to clarify their position and to inform us of their mistake. They didn't intend to attack us," the French military spokesman, Lt-Col Ange-Antoine Leccia, told AFP. Sunday's clash was the fourth in the past eight days between the rebels and the French forces, news organisations reported. Originally some 1200 French troops had been deployed to protect foreigners and monitor a ceasefire signed by MPCI in October and accepted by the government. France has since increased its troops to 2,500 and mandated them to enforce the truce." (emphasis added) http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/contactafrica/2002-December/000308.html (sorry - don't know how to make a link) |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-1-18 5:11:24 PM |
| #11 4000 French troops would be a large chunk of their "rapid deployment" force.The 6000+ troops would be mostly African,with a battalion or two from Fiji,Thailand,etc.Money would come from UN,with US paying 1/2 as usual.And 5 years from now nothing will have changed. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-1-18 4:02:34 PM |
| #10 Cote d'Ivoire had quagmire written all over it from the git go. Nobody with a rational mind wanted to touch this one. The French jumped in and now they they are in deep, wanting to put the UN into it to cover their failure. If we go into the Cote d'Ivoire, it becomes our tar baby. If we do not, the French will say our refusal caused the failure. Let France and her buddies get themselves out of the Cote d'Ivoire Quagmire™ themselves. I am sick of their whining and undermining of the WoT. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-1-18 2:17:57 PM |
| #9 If the French want 6000 additional troops, let their "friends" in Europe supply them, or get them from Latin America or Asia. It is not in the best interest of the United States to help the French rebuild their African empire. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-1-18 1:43:11 PM |
| #8 Charles: I don't know where they're supposed to come from. If the US is supposed to provide them, well, we're already busy with other things. Part of the reason I asked the question is that all the usual suspects say that if only we'd genuflected more at the altar of the UN and France, suddenly we'd have a lot more troops available to help out in Iraq. But I suspect the truth is, the troop strength just isn't there, if you're talking about actual well-trained troops instead of the usual sorts the UN often rents from third-world kleptocracies. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-18 1:41:55 PM |
| #7 Barbara - I found this through Googling "UNSC and Cote D' Ivoire": On 4 February, through resolution 1464 (2003), the Council welcomed the deployment of ECOWAS and French troops, which aimed at supporting a peaceful solution of the crisis in Côte d'Ivoire and implementation of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement. That Agreement, signed on 24 January, called for the formation of a government of national reconciliation and the establishment of a monitoring committee to supervise compliance, leading to elections in 2005 so, it sounds like they got the vote first - but have handled it verrrrry poorly since, non? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-1-18 1:04:43 PM |
| #6 where are the 6,000 troops supposed to come from, anyway? Where do you THINK they're supposed to come from? Belguim? |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-1-18 12:30:42 PM |
| #5 I don't get it either. Are 6000 troops going to be enough to keep the peace there if the government or rebels decide not to keep the peace, and besides, where are the 6,000 troops supposed to come from, anyway? |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-18 11:43:50 AM |
#4 #2 Frank G:except I think there was a vote allowing the French to go inWasn't that vote taken after the Frogs were already there? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-1-18 11:06:56 AM |
| #3 "We have some reservations about the numbers," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Friday. "We had heard much lower numbers earlier on, so we really want to take a hard look at that." I translate this statement as a call for the French or for Kofi to be more ammenable to UN involvment in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-18 10:43:03 AM |
| #2 Correct SDB, except I think there was a vote allowing the French to go in. Nobody cared to join in, we were busy evacuating dependents in Liberia around that time IIRC. Let the French solve this on their own |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-1-18 7:07:11 AM |
| #1 So France went in to Cote d'Ivoire (unilaterally and without a UNSC resolution, IIRC) and got themselves into a quagmire, and now they're looking for an international force to replace them and bail them out. Isn't that exactly what they claimed we'd do in Iraq? (And then got all huffy when we refused to let the UN take over?) |
| Posted by: Steven Den Beste 2004-1-18 2:27:27 AM |