Ghana’s Policy On The Ivorian Crisis

Ghana’s Policy On The Ivorian Crisis: Protecting Gbagbo With The Language Of Diplomacy (PART TWO)

By Samuel Adjei Sarfo

The elections in Ivory Coast were postponed several times by the Gbagbo government. In the end, Laurent Gbagbo remained President of Ivory Coast for a total of ten years, five years beyond his initial mandate and twice his term of office. Finally on October 31, 2010, elections were held in which the turn-out was 80%. In the first round, Conan Bedie had 25%, Alassane Ouattara had 32% and Laurent Gbagbo had 38%. U.N. mission chief Y.J. Choi was required to sign off on the results according to the accords reached to end the political deadlock that followed the civil war in 2002-2003, which left the north of the country in rebels hands.

"After a thorough analysis and evaluation of the final results of the first round ... I have arrived at the conclusion that the process leading to the proclamation of the final results ... was determined through a fair and transparent process," Choi told a news conference regarding the first round of elections that occurred in October 31, 2010.

It is instructive to note that Gbagbo accepted the results of the first round without protest, although Konan Bedie appealed to the Constitutional Council concerning certain irregularities. As regards these irregularities, the Independent Electoral Commission took affirmative steps to correct them in the second round and Gbagbo went into this second round with his cyclopean eye open, having submitted to the mandates of the Independent Electoral Commission and the supervision of the international community.,

The second round of voting was also successful and the electoral process was proclaimed by the international observers as generally free and fair. But trouble began to brew with the declaration of results by the Independent Electoral Commission. After several delays, an attempt by the electoral commission to announce the results was interrupted when a supporter of Gbagbo ripped the papers into pieces before the media cameras. Afterwards, the commission was frustrated from announcing the results on several occasions until on the 28 of November, when at the Golf Hotel, the commission announced to the whole world that Alassane Ouattara had won by over 54% as against Gbagbo’s 46%. The following day, the Constitutional Council of Ivory Coast, headed by a staunch supporter of Laurent Gbagbo, overturned the results after cancelling half a million votes belonging to Ouattara, and giving Gbagbo 51% percent victory.

Of this strange drama, a reader once wrote to me:

You cannot cancel 500,000 votes cast for one candidate from one particular region just because you think there were irregularities. How did the constitutional court arrive at this magic figure? Why didn't they cancel all the results in the north? what about the votes cast for Gbagbo in the north? Did they cancel them too? Gbagbo supporters should not hide behind the so called 'rule of law' to legalise the fraud. Lets remember that all the laws passed by the Nazis against the Jews were perfectly legal under German Law. South Africa's Apartheid laws were also legal, yet the world community frowned upon them. The fact that it’s legal to steal an election in Cote d'Ivoire does not make it right. The world should not sit back and let it happen.

The above is a cogent summation of the injustice inherent in the arguments of the Gbagbo faction.

Furthermore, the calls for a so-called diplomatic solution to the crisis have been strident, especially the one coming from F.P Rawlings, who also called for extreme restraint. Given the secret meeting of President Atta Mills and F.P. Rawlings, one can assume that the government policy against forced removal of Gbagbo is informed by Rawlings’ articulated objections to the use of force in his recent statements. Yet these calls are short on exactly what outcome people contemplate when they for diplomatic solution. One can only imagine that the calls are color-coded in favor of power- sharing. Of this kind of arrangement, Kenya and Zimbabwe point the way to its insufficiency and danger. That kind of arrangement sets up a paradigm for the demise of democracy in Africa. Why must the winner of elections compensate himself by playing second fiddle to the loser of that election? In the Ivorian situation in particular, such an arrangement is superfluous because power-sharing already existed, and the election was conducted to give meaning to democratic rule through the direct franchise of the Ivorian people, and to end the civil war and the unpopular power-sharing arrangement.

We may also assume that by the loud calls for diplomatic solution, the government of Ghana is presupposing that Gbagbo must be persuaded to step down. But up to this point, it takes a stream of faith to imagine that this miracle will happen. Gbagbo is not going to budge by any persuasion. The man is digging in by the day and no amount of words can convince him to give up power.

If the Mills government or F.P. Rawlings were objective and sincere, one will imagine that when they call on the international community to exercise restraint and opt for a peaceful resolution, their calls will be accompanied by some affirmative action to urge Gbagbo to step down; or at the very least, incorporate by reference the international community’s concerns and demands. And yet herein lies the hypocrisy of these calls, that those calling for a peaceful resolution go ahead to discredit the elections, to raise issues of tribal tensions which should trump the electoral results, to demand another elections, or to simply cast doubt about the nationality of Ouattara and the people of the north of Ivory Coast. One person even sent me heavily edited reports of vote rigging in the north without saying anything about such reports in the south. These anecdotal reports are silent about how the claims therin materially affected the outcome of the elections. In this internet day and age, any cogent arguments Gbagbo has about the elections ought to be accessible by everyone. Every one of those half a million votes that were cancelled must be justified. And the finding of facts and the conclusions of law by which the Constitutional Council arrived at its decision should be open to universal scrutiny. As the case now stands, we have people who are shouting about restraint and resolution who are at the same time telegraphing their preference for a Gbagbo presidency. Their intent has nothing to do with peace and diplomacy, but to protect a Gbagbo presidency by disguising their preference in the language of peace and diplomacy

The Ghana government’s policy is also founded on the language of fear that paints a doomsday scenario should any force be used against Gbagbo. The government parrots the insinuations of the Gbagbo faction about the safety of the nationals and interests we have in Ivory Coast. In other words, government impliedly supports Gbagbo’s attempt to use our nationals and interests as chips to sow fear and paint nightmare scenarios, forgetting that these scenarios will be no different if Gbagbo continues to defy the international community and to remain in power. One such outcome will be a civil war in Cote d’Ivoire. In the case of a civil war, refugees are going to stream across the border anyway and Ghanaian nationals residing in Ivory Coast, and the oil interest of Ghana along the Ivorian border are going to suffer the same fate as that which the government of Ghana fears will result should force be used to oust Gbagbo. Even with a Gbagbo presidency and a civil war in Ivory coast, the enumerated problems are going to be worse because a civil war will be more prolonged than an interventionist force.

Finally, whether through civil war, peaceful resolution or ouster by an external force, Laurent Gbagbo is toast at the moment, and is bound to go one way or another. A Ouattara presidency is a certainty in Ivory, and the posturing of the Ghanaian government is being noted by the ouattara faction. Already, Ghanaians are being arrested in the north of Ivory Coast. This is just an adumbration of the kind of condition awaiting Ghana for failing to support a Ouattara presidency. Worse fate awaits Ghana for vacillating about the Ivorian issue and wrongfully signaling her support for a Gbagbo presidency.

Ghana’s policy of détente about the Ivorian crisis is indeed misplaced because the resistance against the use of force is not informed by any good faith, but capsuled in diplomatic language to preserve a Gbagbo presidency. The strident calls for peace are not accompanied by an equally persuasive action to persuade Gbagbo to cede power. Rather, it is tainted by articulate pronouncements that undercut the integrity of the election and question its validity in the face of ethnic tensions in Ivory Coast. Finally, the nightmare scenarios painted as an excuse not to intervene by force are invalid, insofar as these dangers will persist under a Gbagbo presidency.

For the foregoing reason, Ghana must join the international community to use any means necessary to oust the Gbagbo presidency. In Zimbabwe and Kenya, the world failed to act decisively, and the losers are still the leaders. In Nigeria, Abiola died in prison after winning an election. In Ivory Coast, the world has a moral mandate to excise a tumor of evil that survived Zimbabwe and Kenya…. through the use of arms if necessary; or wrap the tumor in the Kenya/Zimbabwe treatment for it to fester silently. Should Ghana join the world act decisively now to remove Laurent Gbagbo from power by military force, the lives that will be lost in Ivory Coast will be fewer than if it refused to act decisively now, and yet the lesson to the world and Africa in decisive action will be the glorious uplift of true democracy and the ideals of freedom. Nothing is gained by accommodating the purvayors of electoral fraud or those drunken with the wine of dictatorship. When the world accommodated Hitler, millions died in a later attempt to forcibly remove him. If Ghana fails to join the world to remove Gbagbo now, millions will die in a later attempt to remove him through the use of military force. Therefore Ghana, which continues to be a beacon of democracy for the whole of Africa, should do whatever it takes to ensure that she speaks together with the whole world and acts decisively in the interest of democracy in Ivory Coast. If this means direct military intervention under the aegis of the ECOWAS, so be it.

Samuel Adjei Sarfo lives in Houston, Texas. You can email him at sarfoadjei@yahoo.com