The Ivorian Crisis – What ‘The Hell’ Is Mills Talking About?

The recommendation of Ghana

to employ dialogue as a panacea to right the ongoing post electoral crises in Ivory

Coast has been met with fire and brimstone

from opposition leadership in Ghana

and some foreign actors. What is worse, the stance by Ghana not to contribute

troops, should

legitimate force be contemplated as a last resort, has led to wild speculations

and assigning questionable motives to the Atta Mills led government of Ghana.

‘The government of Ghana is weak’.

One BBC correspondent remarked. According to the opposition in Ghana, ‘the

government of Ghana is the brain behind the recalcitrant

stance of the embattled president o f Ivory coast’. Atta Mills has been

bribed’, remarked one social commentator. Indeed, it remains a common

phenomenon these days to hear contributors to radio-phone-in sections

postulating that the government of Ghana wants to also benefit

electorally in 2012 should President Gbagbo remain in office.

Nevertheless, should we not examine the position of Ghana beyond assumptions and

speculations?

To start with, available evidence

does not lend credence to the fact that ‘the no war’ stance adopted by Ghana to

resolve the Ivorian crises is a tacit support for the presidency of Gbagbo.

What is factual however, is the public declaration of Ghana that it

believes that Mr. Ouattara, Ivorian Opposition leader won the last disputed

elections. This position is further amplify by the fact that Ghana is signatory

to a declaration of ECOWAS, which endorses the opposition leader as the

president elect and has gone ahead to contribute not less than five hundred

Ghanaian troops that currently provides security to the man it believes to have

won the elections.

In fact, Ghana’s reluctance in advocating for war in the

Ivorian crises is not only because its military capabilities appears to be

overstretched because of peacekeeping exercises across the globe, including Ivory Coast

but for the following reasons as well.

One, the evidence appears to be

scanty to demonstrate that a military warfare will be the magic wand that will

bring peace to Ivory Coast.

Indeed lessons from Iraq and

Afghanistan

are so fresh in our minds. What will a potential war in Ivory Coast

achieve? How long will it last? Is there an estimate for civilian causalities?

What is the implication for neighboring countries as far as the refugee

situation is concern? What next after the war? Moreover, will the cost of war

in any way compare to using dialogue?

Two,

Ghana has not less than two

million of its citizens living and working in Ivory Coast. What will be the fate

of this Ghanaians if Ghana

should provoke or support war in that country? In fact, the picture becomes

even more alarming when one considers the fact that Ghana

is bordered on the west by Ivory

Coast and that its recently discovered oil

is directly on the border with this embattled country. Why will anybody want to

place such huge investment and treasure in jeopardy? The onus is on Ghana to

unanimously speak with one voice to chat the way for a peaceful resolution to

the impasse even if it comes to the use of military force to uproot Gbagbo.

This is not a platform to gain political capital, as some have chosen to, but a

platform to demonstrate patriotism not to Ghana

alone but Africa as a whole. Have we asked

ourselves why France

is suddenly alarmed and quite when pundits begin parroting use of military to

force Gbagbo out of power? What has Ghana

not done in maintaining peace in Ivory Coast prior to their election?

In any case, can we take a closer look at the reports of ECOWAS, A.U. and U.N.

electoral observers and possibly marry them to our present stands.

Thirdly, the right as to who

governs Ivory Coast

remains the prerogative right of the Ivorian people. The least anybody can do

is to seek and support any such internal measures that have been put in place

by the indigenes to resolve their problem. In the unlikely event that no such

measure exists, one can comfortably volunteer one for the consideration of the

local folks. Membership of regional or international bodies, should serve such

useful purposes as enhancing trade, communication, transportation,

neighborliness and useful assistance in times of crises. What this embattle

Country does not need is for body to breath fire at the back of its neck and

start a war it has no commitment to finish, particularly when it was dialogue

and not war which has resolved many conflict around the world, including

Liberia.

Across

African political leadership, the issue of trust is a big problem. Thus when

President Mills opine with condor, there is a need to commend him and encourage

him to always exhibit for others to emulate especially the younger generations.

I think one of the best legacies that our African leaders can bequeath

generations to come is TRUTH AT ALL TIMES. It is only the virtue of condor that

can consolidate trust in African leadership.

By Susu Alordey: susualordey@yahoo.com