You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa: Subsaharan
UN votes to impose arms embargo on Ivory Coast
2004-11-16
The United Nations Security Council has imposed an immediate arms embargo on Ivory Coast and vowed to punish key government and rebel leaders with additional sanctions next month.
I don't recall a shortage of arms being the problem.
Maybe it's a problem with short arms? It could just be an issue with the translation from the French.
The 15 nation council unanimously adopted a sanctions resolution drafted by France, the former colonial power, after the Ivorian Government launched bombing raids on the rebel-held north a little over a week ago, shattering an 18-month truce and killing nine French peacekeepers and a US civilian. The council had delayed a vote last week to give African Union officials a chance to patch up the peace process between the Government forces holding the south and the rebels controlling the north of the world's largest cocoa producer, but no deal was reached.
Posted by:Steve White

#12  "Quick, Jacques - close that barn door!"
Posted by: mojo   2004-11-17 12:11:47 AM  

#11  The government of Ivory Coast should thank its lucky stars the UN didn't impose the ultimate sanction: A UN conference.
Posted by: badanov   2004-11-16 3:41:56 PM  

#10  Chicago Mike - What markers are you talking about? Not like they are ever going to back us up or vote for us when we need them....
I guess "Blood for Cocoa" is ok, but "Blood for Oil!" isn't.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2004-11-16 3:38:41 PM  

#9  Moving right along on Sudan, I see? Cause, you know, a few threatened French people is so much more important than 100,000 dead Sudanese. We shouldn't have gone along this time-not because we wanted revenge for their avoidance of Iraq, but to prevent our being associated with those who are blase about genocides.
Posted by: Jules 187   2004-11-16 1:39:48 PM  

#8  I think we voted with France to collect markers for further use. An arms ban won't make a bit of difference in IC. It's strictly Old Europe kneejerk reaction. The Ivoirian militias and various troublemakers don't need bullets and mortars. The guys who have been rampaging up and down streets in Abidjan use machetes and crowbars to main and rob since the French military has to wait for the UN to tell them it's OK to fire on troublemakers. Result: Frenchie soldiers don't shoot, just watch. Troublemakers know this. Let EU/UN/AU handle it and we just vote along patting Jacques on the back wishing him good luck.
Posted by: chicago mike   2004-11-16 1:28:10 PM  

#7  The more important story here is that yet again a people attacked by Moslems is told by the UN that it should not seek to defend itself. And France is supporting the Moslems.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2004-11-16 11:02:40 AM  

#6  i've got it! new zealand peace negotiators to butter the situation to the end of the rainbow.
Posted by: tito   2004-11-16 2:44:46 AM  

#5  The reason we didn't veto or use a threat to is we just want to show the world how short the "short arms" of the French actually are.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-11-16 1:07:15 AM  

#4  Cool! Does this mean we can sell them advanced arms and missles like France sold to Saddam while he was under a U.N. arms embargo?

Time to buy stock in an arms company!
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-11-16 12:49:37 AM  

#3  Why should "W" soften and reach out to that sap sucking Chirac?! I can't believe how far Bush wants to lean over for the france. There are enough AU and french to handle the Sudanese matter without getting our hands 'dirty'.
Posted by: smn   2004-11-16 12:31:04 AM  

#2  Not again.
Posted by: someone   2004-11-16 12:13:23 AM  

#1  Why did we vote with France?
Posted by: 3dc   2004-11-16 12:06:03 AM  

00:01