The Pros and Cons upon the Ivorian Case

By African Bulletin on April 8, 2011

The Joint UN-France Strike has divided the Africans countries within the “Pros” and “Cons”. Some see it as “an insult to law”, and others believe that it is the only solution left to “protect civilians”.

South Africa took varying positions, from supporting Alassane Ouattara, to understanding the incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo’s position.
“I do not recall having given anyone a mandate for an aerial bombardment on the Ivory Coast” said South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, while South Africa has just voted favorably on March the 30th, for the UN Mission (UNOCI) to use “All necessary measures” to protect civilians and prevent the use of heavy weapons against them”.
The President of the African Union (AU), Teodoro Obiang Nguema, said if the AU exerted “pressure” in favor of the recognized president, Allassane  Ouattara, this should not “involve the intervention of a foreign army” . Angola, had supported Laurent Gbagbo, and subsequently joined the AU position recognizing Ouattara; although Luanda said that Ivory Coast should create a national unity government, and criticized the French intervention alongside the UNOCI. The Cameroonian government has said that his country is for “non-interference in the affairs of a nation”; while Nigeria, who chairs the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Senegal and Gabon are supporting the joint UNOCI-France intervention, “to protect innocent civilians”.  For Rwanda, President Paul Kagame, and even if he did not report on Ivory Coast, he supports the Western intervention in Libya, stating he does not understand the “arguments” of the non-intervention supporters, accepting a government “killing his own people”. We should keep in mind that the international community did not intervene in Rwanda, victim of genocide in 1994 when 800. 000 people, mostly Tutsis, were killed.