The Irony Of R2P And The Ivory Coast

You all remember Rwanda, don't you?  It did make the news back about the time Whitewater was the lead story.  The butchery in Rwanda, the killing of Hutus by Tutsis and Tutsis by Hutus put enough bodies in local streams to cause impromptu dams and flooding.  The imagery was shockingly brutal enough--even in the pre-YouTube days of network censorship--to cause waves of revulsion throughout the US, Europe, and elsewhere.

There were mouthfuls of "deplore" and "unacceptable."  There were repeated calls for "restraint" and "moderation."  World leader after world leader denounced the ongoing slaughter.  But, no state did anything to impose a moratorium on mass murder.  The "international community" assembled on the banks of the Hudson was long on words and very, very short on deeds.

It was only a decade or so later that the "international community" and its great organization, the UN, did something other than talk.  Boosted by "concern" and even "alarm" over religiously motivated industrial strength killing in Bosnia, the member states of the UN finally did something in response to Rwanda.  The 192 members unanimously approved an "outcome document" which enshrined the Responsibility to Protect (R2P.)

The diplomats assembled in the General Assembly executed the will of their respective governments and declared that when a government failed to protect its citizens from genocide or war crimes or crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing, then the "international community" had the responsibility to extend protection to those in danger and need.  It was a feel-good move.  Some of the governments, particularly the legatees of the long Western movement by fits and starts to lessen the damage of war and enhance the rights of citizens against arbitrary government, might actually have intended that R2P would have real effect in the real world of real evil deeds.

Other states, no doubt, had no intent of ever honoring any obligation under the R2P formulation.  None would oppose it openly as such would be even more politically incorrect and liable to bring international disapproval than being against clean air and drinkable water.  International disapprobation brings with it a loss of influence and no state wishes that for itself.  So every country marched along with a light heart and a merry tune on its lips into a brave, bright future of greater safety for all.

Even the many governments which were authoritarian on a good day and brutally suppressive most of the time joined up.  Libya linked arms with Norway, Syria with Sweden, Iran with Denmark; Russia wrapped its arms around Canada while China did the same with the US.  It was such a sweet moment!  There was Zimbabwe; there was Sudan; there was the Ivory Coast.  All singing the R2P jive.

The R2P outcome document was long, almost infinitely long, on high minded and lofty sentiments.  It was short to the point of nonexistence on those pesky details such as what would trigger R2P or who would make the trigger decision or who would actually do the dirty work of protecting some group somewhere against some dire threat.  There were no mechanisms, no procedures, no substance which would serve to speedily and uniformly transform the fine sounding words of R2P to the dirty realities of imposing its requirements on a recalcitrant (or nonexistent) government.

All except the most starry-eyed and vapid minded of folks knew that the realities of international politics assured that R2P would have the impact of an ant's fart on a hurricane.  True, but with an important, indeed critical caveat, unless one or more major powers determined that national or strategic interest demanded the application of R2P in a particular venue--and worked with determination and purpose to gain sufficient support from states having coinciding national or strategic interests.

This is why the bombs have been falling in Libya and not Yemen or Bahrain.  Consistency is nice but not either necessary nor sufficient in the formulation and execution of foreign policy.

For reasons endemic to the domestic political cultures of both France and the UK, Libya loomed large.  Facilitating the task of gaining sufficient consensus internationally was Colonel Gaddafi's record of global mischief making and domestic suppression.

The US could have sat out this particular dance.  The Americans had no direct dog in the fight even if there existed a longer term threat of a resurgent Gaddafi reverting to his pre-2003 type should he prevail domestically.  But, the Obama administration had taken lumps almost beyond count for its lack of a firm stance during the "Jasmine" and "Lotus" revolutions.  And, it should never be forgotten there were three potent members of the senior level personnel who had either been badly traumatized by Rwanda (Powers and Rice) or were abundantly proud of the American led intervention in Bosnia (Clinton).

Now comes the irony.

Of all the countries around the world currently undergoing internal political convulsions, there is one in which the impact of governmental sins of both omission and, more importantly, commission merit the immediate invocation of R2P.  That country is not Bahrain, despite the contentions of those who abhor inconsistency.  Nor is it Yemen even though that country has seen a respectable body count.  It is not even Syria, authoritarian as that country might be.  It is not even Libya even though the fighting is in full swing under the kindly eyes of US and other country's pilots.

The country is the Ivory Coast.

By all the metrics and standards customarily employed to measure such things, the Ivory Coast is in the throes of internal war in which one of the contestants is the internationally condemned incumbent president, Laurent Gbagbo, and the other is the internationally recognized winner of the presidential election, Alassane Outtara.  Each claimant to the throne is backed by armed supporters, but Gbagbo has the army as well as less formal militias in his corner.

The weeks and months since the election have seen an escalation in violence which has taken a very obvious ramp up in the past few days.  There are, according to the UN, which has the typically ineffectual "peace keeping" force in country, currently as many as one million internally displaced persons, most of whom are fleeing the murder squads in Abidjan.

Fears of an increased body count have grown since Gbagbo now has one--that's right, one--attack helicopter at his disposal as well as some brand new multiple rocket launchers.  These fears have not resulted in any significant action by the UN or the "international community" or even the African Union.  There have been no economic sanctions imposed on Gbagbo or his intimates.  Nor have there been any travel bans.  None of the instant moves employed against Gaddafi in the earliest days of the popular uprising.

The UN Human Rights Counsel has taken time out from condemning Israel so that it might send a commission of inquiry to the Ivory Coast.  Apparently this bastion of concern over the wellbeing of all people everywhere cannot rely on media reports and must ascertain for itself as to whether or not there have been human rights abuses committed by Gbagbo and his forces.  In the same resolution, the Watchdog of Humanity called upon the state radio in Ivory Coast to "refrain" from inciting violence.

Wow!  That must have them shaking in their boots all around the presidential palace.  The boys had best be careful with their knee knocking, they might drop one of those dread rockets and hurt themselves.

The US has taken a firm, even hard, line on the Ivory Coast Question.  In a video message to the folks down there Ivory Coast way, President Obama has termed the election "fair and free" and has said that he recognizes Outtara as the real deal president.  He called for Gbagbo to hand over the keys to the presidential latrine.

Well, if that doesn't get Gbagbo's attention what good would sanctions or travel bans or no-fly zones do?  Right now it is impossible to say how many people have died since the 28 November 10 election.  But, given the impressive number who were killed in the crossfire during the last round of internal war as well as the more conservative reports out of Africa, the number must equal at the least the eight thousand or so killed in Libya prior to the establishment of the no-fly and no-go zones.

Considering that Susan Rice was reportedly shaken to her very core when she went to Rwanda shortly after the machetes stopped swinging and Samantha Powers has made her bones as an academic by studying genocide, it is of some interest that the US is seemingly indifferent to the looming massacres in the Ivory Coast.  Even if Ms Rice and Ms Powers are loath to see white American wings over a Black African country, they should be plumping for the symbolic sanctions and travel bans.  Admittedly, the Ivory Coast is a prime source of high quality chocolate and Americans are fond of eating this particular comestible, but even our collective sweet tooth should not be allowed to prevent action intended to halt killings.

By the appearance of indifference to African deaths at the hands of Africans, the US and Europe run the real risk of being accused once more of racism.  This happened, you might recall, during the Nineties with the contrast between Rwanda and Bosnia.  The French alone have taken some sort of lead at least in the UNHRC.  Perhaps Sarkozy is sensitive to sentiments arising in Africa.

The Geek has written this post not because he favors an intervention in the Ivory Coast.  He does not.  Rather the purpose of this exercise has been to demonstrate not simply the intellectual bankruptcy of the Obama administrations approach to foreign affairs but, more importantly, the failure, an inevitable and built in failure of the R2P and similar lofty minded moves by the "international community."

When night falls, like it or not, foreign policy is directed, even dictated, by a combination of domestic political imperatives and national interest, not abstract principle.  The only form of hypocrisy which matters is that of pretending otherwise.

Another Case Where Hanging Tough Pays Off

The Big Two of Successful Defiance Of The International Community, Iran and North Korea, have been joined by another practitioner of cocking a snoot at Great Powers and international organizations, the Ivory Coast.  To err on the side of accuracy it is not the country which is flipping the bird at the assorted powers and both the UN and African Union but rather an aging dictator who maintains he did not lose the election which all the others insist he did.  Laurent Gbagbo has been the Man In Charge for a decade or so and intends to keep on doing so no matter what the AU, UN, or assorted others might say.

The situation in the Ivory Coast with Gbagbo, his army, and his militias holding on to power while confining the properly elected new president, Alassane Ouattara, prisoner in a luxury beachfront hotel and forcibly searching the vehicles of the UN peacekeeping force should be a form of comic relief, theater of the absurd.  It is not.  The standoff in Abidjan is no laughing matter because of its possible even probable impact on the twenty countries in Africa which have elections scheduled for this year.

Africa has never shown itself to be overly hospitable to democracy, at least any form of the often altered beast which would be generally recognizable as an open expression of popular will in the choosing of governmental leaders.  The combination of historical, demographic, social, and economic features which typify much of the continent provide very thin soil for democracy of the sort common in Europe or North America.  Rather the environment has proven nourishing to the ambitions and agendas of autocrats, strongmen, the makers of coups and thieves of elections.

If Gbagbo is allowed to get away with his effort to hold on to power, the probability is that democracy will become even more of an endangered species than it has been.  The US, France, the UK, the EU, and the UN have all imposed sanctions and flexed diplomatic jaw muscles.  The regional organization, ECOWAS, as well as the African Union have also imposed financial and economic sanctions in addition to sending diplomatic missions almost by the score.

So far all the diplomatic palaver and sanctions have had no useful effect.  Even the cutting off of governmental access to governmental funds on deposit with the regional central bank did not claw Gbagbo's grasping fingers from the levers of power,  If anything, all the talk, all the sanctions, all the implied threats, all the offered inducements have done nothing but enhance Gbagbo's intransigence.  In connection with this it might be recalled that Gbagbo did something even Vladimir Putin or Hu Jintao would not contemplate--he refused to accept phone calls from President Obama.

When the UN Security Council sent a message by authorizing an increase in the UN peacekeeping force in the Ivory Coast by two thousand men, Gbagbo demonstrated just how scared he was by ordering his troops to stop and inspect UN vehicles.  In a quick and unmistakable way, the incumbent ex-president showed his contempt for the "international community" as he had some weeks earlier blown off Mr Obama.  With the nerve of a World Series of Poker champion, Gbagbo has called every bluff.

The Western countries, even France whose flag once flew over the Ivory Coast, have washed their collective hands of the situation.  After all, chocolate is nice but it is hardly a strategic material.  The UN has made all the right motions but lacks both the capacity and political will to actually do something.  ECIWAS has shot its wad.

This means the decision making and execution ball is firmly in the African Union's court.  This is as it should be.  The fifty-three member bloc has the most at stake in the Affair Of The Tenacious President.  It also has the capacity to employ effective coercion to achieve its policy goals--should such be defined with a degree of specificity.

Many of the AU's member states are functioning but fragile democracies.  It would seem as a result that the AU should operate without delay using all appropriate means to assure that democracy is not put in further peril by Gbagbo's refusal to accept the verdict of the polls.  Anyone who has followed the developing situation in the Ivory Coast must have long realized that this is a case where only the credible threat of force would serve to reinforce less robust mechanisms of coercive diplomacy.

Unfortunately, the AU is badly divided on how to accomplish a broadly accepted aim--the removal of Gbagbo.  Nigeria has called for the use of military force.  South Africa favors more mediation.  Anglola has beat the drum for new elections.  Other member states have aligned behind one or another of these countries.

If there is a consensus, it is against the use of the "military option."  Although arguments against an AU adventure in regime change are usually couched in terms of humanitarian considerations, the subtext is far more realistic.  Many Africa states are of the view that their military forces are not up to the task.  Others fear the unmentionable: Deployment of the army or any sizable contingent would open the domestic door to coup plotters or self-styled revolutionaries.

There is a great deal of rationality to each of these considerations.  Most AU member states possess armies which are internal security oriented.  Few AU national forces assigned to UN peacekeeping missions have demonstrated the necessary levels of professional competence to mount an invasion which is carefully constrained in lethality and destructiveness.  Taking out a regime which enjoys rightly or not a sizable degree of support without leaving behind a failed state would be very difficult for even the best trained and officered military.

A mission of this degree of difficulty is lightyears beyond the competence of any AU member state's military.  This means the AU does not have the credible capacity to coerce Gbagbo from office.  Importantly, both the AU leadership and Gbagbo know this.

The dreary conclusion of this is simple.  Absent a diplomatic miracle which would tax the devious skills of a Talleyrand, Gbagbo will stay in the presidential palace and his rival will remain penned up in the hotel.  This, in turn, implies that democracy in Africa takes one more bullet in the back of the neck.

Let's hear it one more time for the triumphant march of democracy.  Well, it does sound nice, doesn't it?  If it weren't for reality...