No replies to this topic

[Harlot]

I am sure that everyone has heard about what has been going on in Ivory Coast in the past few weeks, even if they don't know the stained history of the country. Nevertheless, to summarize what is going on in the country without doing a complete rehash, the country has a history of civil wars between the North and South of the country. The northern part of the country is dominated by Muslims, while the southern part is dominated by Christians. The problem is partly France and other European countries fault, because they pretty much carved the country out of nothing. When you carve countries out of nothing, and mix groups of people who are nationalistic, you violence. We have seen that violence in places such as Serbia, where two countries were mixed and the people couldn't identify with one another. I think a good country to compare Ivory Coast to would be Nigeria. The same thing happened there, the country was drawn from nothing by European powers, and there was no consideration in regards to the tribes and people they were mixing together in one country. So now in Nigeria, you have both ethnic and religious issues, with Christians dominating one side of the country and Muslims dominating the other, and each want their candidate to win. Nigeria's solution was to have a rotating presidency, which probably would be a good idea for the Ivory Coast if they ever want to solve their problems. This is because no matter who win, the other side will retaliate and accused the other side of stealing the election. Nevertheless, the Ivory Coast was drawn up by European powers, just as many other African countries, and the country is now having a lot of ethical and racial issues. In the previous election, I believe in early 2000s, the candidate from the North lost and there was a huge civil war, and the country was literally split into north and south. France, which has a base there, took it upon themselves to step in and place their troop on the border of the northern and southern border of the country in order to try to end the conflict - although I think they should have stayed out of it. The reason I say they should have stayed out of it is because Ivory Coast is an independent country. Could you image someone a thousand miles away, like China, putting troops on the border of the North and South in regards to the Civil War and the war against the Confederacy? It is an internal issue that no other country should get involve in unless called upon by the legitimate government (legitimate meaning the government accepted by democratic institutions such as the legislature and court system). Anyway, after France took action, there was a peace deal where the winner of the election, who was from the south struck a power sharing deal with the leadership of northern militants.

Now, in 2010, the same guy who won the election (Laurent Gbagbo) that led to a civil war back then, was determined the loser of the 2010 election by the country's election commission. Alassane Ouattara, the guy from the north, was declared the winner by the commission. Nevertheless, the results given by the commission have to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Laurent Gbagbo, the incumbent and guy from the south was the winner. They cited wide spread poll rigging in the northern part of the country. So, the United Nations along with the US and European countries called the election a sham and announced that they recognize Alassane Ouattara as President, and both of the guys took the Presidential oath, creating confusion on who the actual president was. So the first thing that happened is the United Nations put Alassane Ouattara in a hotel, and ordered 800+ UN troops to guard the hotel 24/7. Then they froze the assets of Laurent Gbagbo, and even turned over the countries bank accounts to Alassane Ouattara. Laurent Gbagbo ordered the UN to leave the country and placed a blockade on the UN guarded hotel. Now, talks of an invasion of Ivory Coast is being mentioned - seriously mentioned - as a way to know Laurent Gbagbo out of power. Now, I don't think Laurent Gbagbo is an innocent guy, and I believe that Alassane Ouattara probably did win, but how is this anyone's business outside of the country? How is it the business of the UN, US, or Europe? I can use an analogy to explain how ridiculous it really is. Imagine if in the U.S. 2004 Presidential Election, the U.N. came in and announced that they were not going to recognize Bush as the President, but that instead, they would recognize Al Gore. Then, they turn over U.S. foreign bank accounts over to Al Gore and use U.N. troops to guard Al Gore in a hotel and threaten to invade the country if Bush doesn't step down despite the fact that the Supreme Court and Legislature ruled in favor of Bush. Now, if that does not sound like a nation without sovereignty, then I don't know what does. Even Gbagbo stole the election, obviously the Supreme Court and Legislative Branch of the nation doesn't believe that is so - or don't care.

In addition to that, there is hypocrisy. Why don't we have a problem with Saudi Arabia being ran by a monarchy - a dictatorship? Why don't we invade Saudi Arabia, or cut off their foreign bank accounts until the people elect a new leader. Why have we not threatened Burma, who is ran by a military tribune, like we have threatened this little African nation? Why are we not threatening to invade them, or sending in UN troops to guard their democratic candidates? And what about Russia, whose elections have been rigged for the last 20 years. Just to clarify, the U.S. or Europe did not threaten to invade Ivory Coast, but a group of Africa nations who are under the influence of Europe and U.S. did, and they are backed by U.N. support - and you better believe that free American military weaponry will be sent over. Although I think Ron Paul was radical and a little crazy, he was right about the United States being to involved in the politics of other countries, and not embracing non-interventionism enough. We are in everyone's business, including Zimbabwe, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and etc. The involvement of the U.N. and the West should only exist when it is something that effects the international community such as nuclear weapons or terrorism. In most other cases, such as internal elections and politics, we should stay out of it because we would want people to stay out of our internal politics.

Nevertheless, instead, we use words such as "genocide" when there is obviously no genocide going on, or we say the "potential for genocide". Now they are accusing the guy of committing genocide simply because his supporters have taken the streets and pledged to kick the U.N. out of the country, and others have attacked the U.N. troops - I believe one U.N. troop was stabbed or something. It is not his fault that his supporters attack the U.N., there are historical implications dealing with colonization that helps drive their anger. And even if the country uses propaganda against the U.N., has the U.S. and the U.N. not used propaganda against the Ivory Coast. Every country has propaganda, just look at Fox News and MSNBC. Those news networks don't report the news, they create the news. They spin it, leave details out, add details, use code words, exaggerate, and then they give news in the form of opinion rather than in an abstract form.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ning/index.html

Edited by Harlot, 31 December 2010 - 09:22 AM.