Declaration of War: Not Necessary
Since the beginning of the week, the United Nations, under western pressure, has been an active conflict partner in the bloody Ivory Coast civil war. As a spokesperson for the UN confirmed, not only French units but also United Nations' troops have been engaged in combat against the nation's ruling President Laurent Gbagbo and the presidential guards. Particularly the presidential guard's heavy weapons were to be destroyed, according to the spokesperson. UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-Moon declared that an official declaration of war was no longer necessary. It suffices to make reference to a UN resolution making the protection of civilians an obligation.[1] which even allows taking sides with one of the parties to a civil war.
Arbitrary
These UN procedures are of extreme importance for three reasons: first, it demonstrates the arbitrary basis of its current actions. Early last week, when the pro-western militias of Alassane Ouattara began their march toward Abidjan, the first massacres took place. In Duékoué, in the west of the country, up to 800 people - according to the Red Cross - more than a thousand, according to other aid organizations, were murdered. There are several reports of what took place and all concur that Ouattara's militia carried out the massacres. Even the United Nations, itself, drew this conclusion. A report of the Information Service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, IRIN, has provided more precise information: the massacres began when Ouattara's militia entered Duékoué, after troops, loyal to Gbagbo, had fled. It is assumed that the massacres werecarried out, in part, by traditional hunters (Dozo), who had participated already in rebellions against Gbagbo. The inhabitants report that mainly Gbagbo supporters had been killed. This has been corroborated by the fact that the most affected city district, Carréfour, razed to the ground, was mainly inhabited by Gbagbo supporters.[2] It is incomprehensible why the UN intervened in Abidjan to protect civilians, but not in Duékoué, where the threat of massacres still looms. And it is just as incomprehensible why the UN has joined the fighting in this conflict on the side of the presumed mass murderer.
Pro-Western
Secondly, activities over the past few months show that the United Nations has, in fact, taken on the task of bringing the henchman of the West to power. It was already in the aftermath of last fall's elections that some inexplicable transactions were taking place. For example, Ouattara's electoral victory claim was based on a phantom 90 percent that he supposedly obtained in regions already under the control of his militia and totally inaccessible to independent electoral observers. The UN General Secretary explicitly refused a recount with independent electoral observers as witnesses, as Gbagbo demanded. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[3]) The UN sanctions imposed on the Ivory Coast were very effective. They "made it clear" to Gbagbo's supporters "that the Gbagbo government has no future," explains the French West Africa specialist, Antoine Glaser.[4] Glaser is convinced that Ouattara's militias have not only been armed by Nigeria and Burkina Faso, but that they were also trained by US and French advisors. There is no other explanation for the professionalism of their advance, Glaser says. If the objective would have been to protect civilians, rather than to empower Ouattara, the UN would, at least, have had to have prevented what amounted to Ouattara's declaration of war, early last week. The West's henchman announced, from the luxury hotel in Abidjan - under UN troops' protection - that all "peaceful means to get Gbagbo to step down, have been exhausted".[5] Then his militia set out on their march. Under western pressure, including Berlin's, the UN had tolerated that declaration of war, even though numerous observers were warning that this could lead to genocide.
R2P
The arbitrary support for the West's partisan - even at the expense of mass murder - provides an idea of what to expect in the future. This is the third important aspect. The current UN combat mission is based on a concept that has been in discussion for quite a few years, which the West - including Germany - has been able to firmly embed in the policies of the United Nations: the so-called "Responsibility to Protect" or "R2P". This concept parts from the basic assumption that each state is duty-bound to protect its population. If a state allegedly or in fact fails to live up to this obligation, outside powers can intervene - even militarily - to protect the population. Over the past few years, the UN has gradually adopted this concept. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[6]) Its proponents also consider the UN Resolution 1894, concerning the need to protect civilians in armed conflicts, a reinforcement of this concept. Last fall, Berlin and Brussels made it clear that they intended to take practical steps for the realization of "R2P," to be able to establish a precedent case for future reference. The "EU's priorities for the 65th UN General Assembly" in 2010 state accordingly: "The EU will commit itself to the implementation of the final documents of the 2005 World Summit (final documents 138, 139 and 140) and of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept agreed upon in the July 2009 General Assembly general debate."[7]
Precedence
The UN has now established the precedence in the Ivory Coast. NATO had already used this concept for attacking Libya, also claiming that the population must be protected to legitimize their intervention in that civil war. The arbitrary and partisan intervention in the Ivory Coast is an example of how the West intends to use "R2P" in the future for overthrowing any head of state to their disliking, if they have a pliant henchman, with a halfway trained, combat ready militia - even at the risk of genocide. Already at the beginning of its global career, "R2P" is proving itself to be a highly useful instrument for reinforcing western hegemony.
Posts
