On Twitter

Friday, January 28, 2011

Mr.Nicholas Sarkozy: KEEP OFF FROM IVORY COAST KEEP OFF AFRICA!

Mr.Nicholas Sarkozy: KEEP OFF FROM IVORY COAST KEEP OFF AFRICA!
Nicholas Sarkozy, the president of France(a member country of the EU), is set to attend the African Union heads of states meeting in Addis from 30th January, 2011, as a special guest. His program includes attending the main heads of state session, and meeting various African leaders in between and after the meeting(s).
Since this is the first time a French head of state is attending an African Union meeting, questions must be raised as to the real aim of Sarkozy: Is it that he wants to be economical with air fuel, that he cannot pick some dates to visit the “various” heads of states in their respective countries hence his attending the AU summit? Could it be that he wants to learn how the AU sittings work, so that he may propose the good aspects of it to the EU? Or could it be that he just wanted to take a Safari and couldn’t find a better place to do that, than the AU summit/
Currently, there is an uprising in Africa. The people of Tunisia, a former French colony, kicked out Ben Ali, a long time dictator-friend and ally of the French, and a personal friend of Sarkozy from the reins of power through a popular uprising. A few days before the toppling of Ben Ali, France had, according to Foreign Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie,”offered the world-renowned know-how of France’s security forces” to Ben Ali, to counter the Revolution. The aid was in form of Riot Gear, which included bullet proof vests, Tear gas canisters and rubber bullets. At around the same time, Algeria, another former French colony, was (and still is) facing a similar uprising, and the French are in full support of the sitting government (..I wonder why..) The people of Cairo are quickly taking cue from the Revolutionary people of Tunisia; needless to say, Hosni Mubarak is one of the biggest and most strategic allies of the west in Africa and in the Arab world.

Ivory Coast
But could these revolts be the reason for Sarkozy’s self-invitation to the AU summit? The answer is no. It is obvious that the main issue on the table will be Ivory Coast, another former French colony, and a military outpost of the French army.
It is obvious again that Sarkozy wants to pressure request the African leaders to support the Ouster of Gbagbo, and install Ouattara as the president of Ivory Coast, through whatever means. I can imagine him speaking to strategic African presidents, offering loans, grants and other deals (both National and personal) in order for them to support the Installation of Ouattara. I can also see him lecturing them on the need to embrace democracy and the rule of law, since that is the only way that Africa will know peace and development, and it is only through democracy that France, the E.U, and the west will give more aid to Africa. I then see him offering some millions of Euros to the AU and the AU commission (which will of course be given gradually, depending on whether the AU follows the advice given.)

The African Union Commission
The AU has on its side been doing something about Ivory Coast. Immediately after the announcement of the elections, it recognised Ouattara as the President, and days later suspended Ivory Coast from the AU. All this was done, despite the fact that Ouattara had not been announced president, and also despite the fact that observers from the AU observer mission, the EU observers, the Convention of Ivorian Civil Societies and CEPECA described the election as full of malpractices, and irregularities, especially in the regions of the north, (where Rebel leader, Ouattara comes from) in their preliminary reports.
The commission went ahead to appoint former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, to mediate between the two sides. This they did because Mbeki has had a wide experience with the Ivorian Issue and also with Gbagbo and Ouattara when he was the chief mediator during and after the civil war in Ivory Coast.
The commission then secretly sent former Nigerian President Olusegun Obassanjo to Ivory Coast, with no fruits coming out of it.

An invisible hand in the AU
All this time, the Commission’s efforts appeared somehow genuine and clean; that was until the appointed Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila Odinga as the new chief mediator in the Ivorian crisis. This was a clear sign of mischief from the AU, and an indicator that there was/is some interest from elsewhere that was running the show. There are two reasons for this:
First, Raila Odinga was among the very first people to state that Gbagbo must step down. Raila was again among the very first persons to support the idea of a Military intervention, and idea that was first raised by William Fitzgerald, who is the Deputy Assistant US Secretary of State for African Affairs. Even after his appointment as AU’s chief Mediator, Raila was very clear of his intentions; to ask Gbagbo to step down.
How on earth then did the AU decide to appoint him as the chief mediator? It is common knowledge that a mediator should be neutral (are at least show that they are.) Either Jean Ping and his team had gone nuts, or they had just found the perfect person to do their dirty job.
The second reason is precedence. In the past African conflicts mediators between countries have always being appointed as heads of higher regional organisations or heads of AU itself, in other instances, the appointments are given to highly experienced individuals, who have in the past dealt with similar situations. Raila Odinga falls in none of the above.
 Just recently when we had a post elections crisis in Kenya, the AU sent in Cecil Ramaphosa, an experienced mediator from South Africa, they later sent in John Koufur, not only was he the president of Ghana at the time, but he was also the chairman of African Union itself, finally Koffi Annan, a respected African leader and a former head of the United Nations was sent in and brokered a peace deal.
In Zimbabwe, the Chief mediator was the then South African President Thabo Mbeki, who was also the head of SADC, and had a wide knowledge of the issues in Zimbabwe, Mbeki also mediated in Ivory Coast when he was still the president of SA, and the Chair of the African Union, and the examples go on and on. Going by this trend, one would have expected the AU to send the Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika immediately the crisis grew out of hand, the other option would have been Nigeria’s Goodluck Jonathan, the current head of ECOWAS.
What is even yet to be made clear is the reason as to why Thabo Mbeki was removed from the mediation team in the first place.
The rational that was used to select Raila, who has no experience in conflict resolutions, and who doesn’t represent any higher organisation in Africa, is very questionable. Even Gbagbo accepting such a person in the first place was quite irrational.
But the question remains; In who’s interest was the AU acting for?

ECOWAS
ECOWAS, is a 15 member states organisation. Of these 15 countries, it is only a small minority that is maintaining that Gbagbo lost the elections, and that Ouattara is the president, and they further insist that a military intervention (as stated by William Fitzgerald) is the best route in solving the Ivorian crisis. Ghana has since come out openly and declared that it cannot support a military invasion in Ivory Coast. The member states that are supporting the invasion are busy lobbying for Dollars, military hardware and other takings from the imperialists, so that they can facilitate the “African” Invasion.
Blaise Compaore, the President of Burkina Faso, is the loudest of these West African Clowns. He wants to appear as a neutral party, and an African statesman, who has a deep respect for democracy. This he does, when everyone knows that Burkina Faso (thanks to him) is part of the Ivorian problem, and that he has always supported the Northern Rebels. There are even video clips of him, together with Ouattara plotting a coup d’état against Gbagbo during the Ivorian ceasefire period.
Blaise Compaore himself came onto power in 1987, through a military coup sponsored by France (and with help from Houphouet-Boigny, the then dictator of Ivory Coast), where they killed our Revolutionary and most Visionary leader, Thomas Sankara. He did not bother to hide his reasons for toppling Sankara, according to himSankara had to go since he had jeopardised foreign relations with former colonial power France and neighbouring Ivory Coast.”


The “International Community”
The ‘International community’ (meaning the United States and France/Britain) have also raised their concerns, and are pushing for the overthrowal of president Gbagbo. But everyone knows that the imperialists raise their voices only when they want to protect/promote their selfish interests. So, what are their interests in Ivory Coast? Why are they floating this idea of military intervention with so much zeal?
Ivory Coast is the world’s largest Cocoa producer, producing close to a half of the world’s Cocoa. The U.S is the world’s largest producer of Chocolate. France is one of the biggest exporters of Chocolate in the world. Ivory Coast exports coffee too. Ivory Coast is also rich in Gold and Diamond, which are found mostly in the North (an area controlled by the rebels) but only benefit the Rebel leaders like Ouattara and ex-president Henri Konan Bedie. Furthermore, France owns more than 500 businesses that control all the major sectors of the economy.
But is this what the heat is all about? Just like it was in Angola, it is in Congo, in Guinea and all over the world, it is all about the resources.

What we are not being told
It is well known that Ivory Coast is an Oil exporting country, with most of the oil being exported via Total, a French multinational Oil company.
But what is being hidden from the world is the fact some time ago, vast oil deposits were discovered in Ivory Coast. It is estimated that once the mining begins, Ivory Coast will be the second highest Oil Producer in Africa, and what’s more, there are enough deposits to last for well over 100 years!
Now we know what all this is all about. Nothing new, just the Oil.
But why not allow democracy to take its own course, and then deal with whichever leader that comes?
The answer to this is simple, we are in the 21st Century, and with China’s hunger for Oil, the west is not ready to gamble with this very important mineral. They want to be sure that they will get it, but the likes of Gbagbo don’t provide this assurance. Professor Gbagbo is an intellectual, with a trade Union background, and quite a courageous man, as was seen during the days of Dictator Houphouet-Boigny, and later during Robert Guei’s time, and that’s probably why they cannot trust him. But what about Alassane Ouattara, can they bank on Him?




Alassane Ouattara
Ouattara holds a Bsc from Drexel University, Pennsylvania, and a doctorate in Economics, from University of Pennsylvania, and he has worked as an economist for the IMF from 1968 to 1973. He has also worked for the French controlled Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) from 1973 to 1984.
From 1984 up to 1988 he went back to IMF, as the Director of the African Department at the IMF, and as the Counsellor to the Managing Director of the IMF. In 1988, he was appointed as Governor of the BCEAO. He again served as the Deputy Managing Director of IMF, 1994, to 1999.

Performance at the IMF and the BCEAO
It was during Ouattara’s tenure as Director of African Dept at the IMF that the Structural Adjustment Programs took real effect. The SAPs were introduced to “help” third world countries develop faster, but, this is actually what happened (summary from Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN):
Firstly, trade and financial sector reforms destroyed domestic manufacturing leading to massive unemployment of workers and small producers.
Secondly, agricultural, trade and mining reforms reduced the incomes of small farms and poor rural communities as well as their food security.
Thirdly, labour market flexibilization measures and privatizations caused mass layoffs of workers and resulted in lower wages, less secure employment, fewer benefits and “an erosion of workers’ rights and bargaining power.” Privatization of major national assets and essential services allowed/is allowing multinational corporations to remove resources and profits from countries as well as increase rates for water and electricity which hit the poor the hardest.
Fourthly, the cutting of health and education spending under SAPs and the introduction of user fees for these services, when combined with higher utility rates, has resulted in “a severe increase in the number of poor as well as a deepening of poverty.”
This was the period when things like Cotton and Sisal farming died in Kenya, together with KIKOMI, RIVATEX and many others. This was the period when the Kenyan government retrenched thousands of Civil Servants, giving them less than 100,000 each. It was during the implementation of these IMF conditions that the almost free education was scrapped off in Kenya, University students were denied their “Boom” and were even required to buy their own food etc.
All this happened all over Africa, under the mis-leadership of Ouattara.
There is a lot to be said about BCEAO, as Dr Gary K Busch puts it “The creation and maintenance of the French domination of the francophone African economies is the product of a long period of French colonialism and the learned dependence of the African states. For most of francophone Africa there are only limited powers allocated to their central banks. These are economies whose vulnerability to an increasingly globalised economy expands daily. There can be no trade policy without reference to currency; there can be no investment without reference to reserves. The African politicians and parties elected to promote growth, reform, changes in trade and fiscal policies are made irrelevant except with the consent of the French Treasury which rations their funds.”

Ouattara and Dictator Houphouet-Boigny
In between working for the IMF and BCEAO, Ouattara served as Dictator Houphouet-Boigny’s Prime Minister from 1990 to 1993.
Professor Horace Campbell describes Houphouet-Boigny as follows:
After independence in 1960, Cote d'Ivoire became the cockpit of imperial machinations in West Africa for over 50 years Félix Houphouët-Boigny and his political organization allied with France to dominate the spaces of economic, social, political and cultural interactions. Boigny had matured from the class of rich cocoa plantation owners to enter politics during the dying days of colonialism. Prior to the decline of France in the wake of German occupation, the racism of France excluded even rich plantation owners from political spaces, so this exploiter of migrant workers made common cause with the working people by organizing the Syndicate Agricole Africain (SAA), a union that defended farm workers and planters’ interests. In 1945, Boigny rose to political prominence when he was elected as the Ivory Coast’s deputy to the French Constituent Assembly.
Riding on the wave of anti-colonialism immediately after WWII, Houphouet-Boigny used the base of the nationalist movement of the (SAA) to be a moving force in Côte d’Ivoire’s first independent political party, Parti Démocratique de la Côte d’Ivoire (PDCI). The PDCI became part of a larger network of French-speaking West African political parties, known as the Rassemblement Démoctratique Africain (RDA). Supported by the French, this RDA opposed Pan Africanism and undermined efforts aimed at transcending the Berlin borders and the divisions between Francophone and Anglophone Africa. This former supporter of the rights of agricultural workers supported French military oppression in Algeria and Vietnam and with this new orientation became a darling of the economic interests of France in West Africa. France identified Africa as the source as its contention to remain as an international force in the global economy and the domination of West Africa was key to the post war posture of the France to maintain a ‘sphere of influence.’ In the face of the militant nationalism of leaders such as Sekou Toure and Felix-Roland Moumie, the planter class in Côte d’Ivoire was identified as reliable allies for French imperial plans as France maintained troops in the ex-colonies in order to intervene to support the plunder of human and natural resources. With its principal allies in Abidjan, investments poured in from Western Europe and North America and the capital city of Abidjan became a hub for Air France and for anti-colonial planning in Africa. The very spatial organization of this growing urban space articulated the hierarchy of the apartheid conditions with Cocody reserved for Europeans, Plateau for the Lebanese traders and Treichville for the mass of African workers. City planning carried a clear French cultural identity with the public buildings and bridges given names of French leaders, with the bridge named after Charles de Gaulle holding pride of place in the developed infrastructure to ferry the rulers between places of exploitation and leisure.
Houphouet-Boigny was rewarded for his alliance with France against African nationalism in the tense period when France deployed troops across Africa. Before France was exposed for its alliance with the genocidaires in Rwanda, the mantra of France was that it was providing peace keeping for Africa. The real purpose of France in its multiple military interventions has been fully documented in the book France, Soldiers and Africa. These interventions postponed democratic transformations and supported the most conservative elements in Africa. These activities of France provide a cautionary tale to those who would support the logic of the US who have established AFRICOM to replace France as the dominant military force in the repression of the African poor.
French soldiers were garrisoned in Cote d’Ivoire and Boigny opted for a form of relationship with France that ensured that the French franc remained the currency, French teachers remained in the schools of the rich, French food dominated in the restaurants and French soldiers were deployed to defend the interests of France. It was easier to make a telephone call to Paris than to call a neighboring African society. French commercial companies ensured that bottled water was imported by running a poor water supply system. It was this kind of relationship that gave rise to the use of the term neo-colonialism to describe the connections between France and the West African former colonies after these societies became independent in 1960. During these years, the African ruling elite served as the conduit for the export of wealth accumulated from the sweat and brow of the working poor. In the process of taking their cut as junior partners in the chain of exploitation, French nationals poured in as the society was branded as a sea of stability and growth. It was in this period of increased foreign investments that the society became the number one cocoa producer in the world and millions of migrant workers were attracted into the society to work on cocoa, coffee and banana farms. By the end of the 20th century the children of these migrant workers from Liberia, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea and Sierra Leone had contributed greatly to the increased wealth of the planters and the Lebanese merchants. As a planter himself, Boigny understood the importance of these workers for the wealth of the society and tolerated these workers as long as they did not become activists in trade union movements.
Accumulating a personal fortune that was estimated to be above $10 billion, Boigny supported an administration that oppressed workers at home while becoming the godfather of other oppressors such as Mobutu. Along with Mobutu, Boigny became a staunch ally of the apartheid regime in South Africa supporting dialogue with the apartheid leaders, when the African freedom fighters and the frontline societies were calling for increased sanctions. Jonas Savimbi found a base for his activities in this society and diamonds from Angola were mixed with diamonds from Sierra Leone as the buildings in Plateau changed character. With new sources of wealth, elements from within the ruling classes of this society became staunch anti-communist allies of France and the United States. These were the forces that benefited from the destabilization of West Africa and the assassination of Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso. Hence, from even before the death of Boigny in 1993, the ruling elements of this society that were the number one producer of cocoa was profiting from war and misery in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. During his last years as leader millions of scarce foreign exchange were spent on the building of the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace in Yamoussoukro, his home community. This was designated the largest cathedral outside of the Vatican, assigning a cultural and political identity for that section of the ruling elite who were members of the Roman Catholic Church.”
That is the person that Alassane Ouattara worked under, for four years, till his death. It was Ouattara who announced Houphouet-Boigny’s death to the nation, saying that "Côte d'Ivoire is orphaned."


The North South Divide
Many dynamics took place after the death of the “father” of the nation, till the civil war erupted in 2002, after a failed coup to topple Gbagbo, and the country was divided into two, the Rebel controlled North and the Government controlled South. Between them is a buffer zone put up and manned by the French army. In the north, the rebels rule by the gun, they collect illegal taxes, they mine the Gold and diamonds, but nothing goes into infrastructure, or back to the people in any way.
Talks were held between the rebels (New Forces) and the government, and it was agreed that there would be a Unity Government, with all rebel leaders included, till the elections are held. The elections were postponed for five years, due to disagreements in the government of National Unity.


Finally the elections are held
The elections were finally held in November, under very tense conditions, and Gbagbo garnered 38%, followed by Outtara with 32% and Henry Konan Bedie getting 25% of the votes.
As per the CONSTIUTION of the Ivory Coast, Gbagbo could not be declared president, since one has to garner over 50% of the total votes. So they proceeded to a run off.
Article 36
The election of the President of the Republic is acquired by an absolute majority of the suffrage expressed. If this is not obtained, it proceeds to a second round, fifteen days after the proclamation of the results of the first round. Only the two candidates having received the greatest number of votes in the first round can present themselves. The convocation of the electors is made by decree in the Council of Ministers. The first round of the ballot takes place in the course of the month of October of the fifth year of the mandate of the President of the Republic.


The Gbagbo-Ouattara Run off
The elections run off was held on 28th November 2010, after which the results were supposed to be released within three days, but this was done on the fourth day, where the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) announced the results as Ouattara having garnered 54.1% against Gbagbo’s 45.9%.
During the announcement, tensions were so high that one of the IEC officials stood, grabbed the results from Youssouf Bakayoko(the Commission chair) and tore it up in protest.
The results were finally announced from Ouattara’s Hotel, and not the IEC buildings, as was done in the first round, and as was expected in the second.
Gbagbo later protested the results, and the Constitutional council, after looking into the matter, announced Gbagbo as the winner, having garnered 51.45% against Ouattara’s 48.55%.
It is said that the IEC is constituted largely by Ouattara’s men (20-2), while the Constitutional Council is dominated by Gbagbo’s people.
Gbagbo’s complaint was that there were districts in the North where votes surpassed 100% (up to 130% in some areas), voters in the North were voting under the barrels of the guns, and there was general voter intimidation. He took his complain to the Constitutional Council.
The African Union Observer mission had this in their report: http://documents.fileave.com/UA%20observer%20mission%20in%20Ivory%20Coast.pdf
But since we had two results, who then is the winner?
According to Ivory Coast constitution:
Article 32
The people exercise their sovereignty by way of referendum and by their elected representatives. The conditions of recourse to the referendum and of designation of the representatives of the people are determined by this Constitution and by an organic law. The Constitutional Council controls the regularity of the operations of the referendum and of the election of the representatives of the people. The organization and supervision of the referendum and of the elections is assured by an Independent Commission within the conditions provided by the law.
It goes further:
Article 88
The Constitutional Council is [the] judge of the constitutionality of the law. It is the regulating organ of the functioning of the public powers.
And:
Article 94
The Constitutional Council controls the regularity of the operations of the referendum and proclaims the results. The Council decides [statuer] on:
— the eligibility of the candidates to the presidential and legislative elections;
— the disputes concerning the election of the President of the Republic and of the Deputies.
The Constitutional Council proclaims the definitive results of the presidential elections.

From the above, it is very clear who proclaims the final results of the presidential elections.
Furthermore:
Article 98
The decisions of the Constitutional Council are not susceptible to any recourse. The [are] imposed on the public powers, on every administrative, jurisdictional, [and] military authority and on every physical and moral person.
But it doesn’t end with the proclamation of the final results, no. An individual becomes president after:

Article 39
The powers of the President of the Republic in office expire at the date of the taking of office of the President-elect, which occurs at the taking of the oath. Within forty-eight hours of the definitive proclamation of the results, the President of the Republic-elect takes the oath before the Constitutional Council meeting in solemn audience. The wording [formule] of the oath is:
“Before the sovereign people of Cote d’Ivoire, I solemnly swear and on my honor to respect and faithfully defend the Constitution, to protect the Rights and Freedoms of the citizens, to conscientiously fulfill the duties entrusted to me in the superior interest of the Nation. May the people withdraw their confidence in me and may I be submitted to the rigor of the laws, if I betray my oath”.

So, the big question is asked again, who won the elections, and who is the President of Ivory Coast?
And the simple answer is Laurent Koudou Gbagbo.


The role of the IEC
All over the world, the electoral bodies do not announce the president, what they announce are the results. It is other bodies that announce who the president becomes. This is why it is sad when some African presidents, who knowing this very well, behave as if that is not the case in their own countries.
What is even worse is the behaviour by the United States government, the so called beckon of democracy, the land of constitutionalism and justice, through President Barrack Obama himself, and repeatedly through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claim that Gbagbo should accept defeat, and that he should step down, and that they recognise Ouattara only.

U.S elections in year 2000
In the year 2000, the American elections also had a close call, where people had claimed (actually slept knowing) that Al Gore had won the election, and then woke up to here Bush being declared winner!
The case went to the U.S Supreme court, where Bush was confirmed winner. Not everyone understood what happened, to many, it didn’t even make sense, but the whole world accepted that. Weeks later, as per the constitution of the U.S, he was sworn in as the president.
As for Al Gore, he went into the conservation world, where seven years later, he won the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize (while Bush was working hard to ruin world peace)
Why is it then that the U.S, is trying to undermine the constitution of the African people of Ivory Coast? Is it that they cannot read, read the Ivorian constitution which i have copy-pasted from the U.S government website? Or they just think that the Ivorian people are just kids to be pushed around.

The way forward
Ivory Coast and Africa in general, has witnessed enough bloodshed. In 2002, over one million civilians had to flee, and over 3000 civilians died in the Ivorian civil war.
Today, close to 200 people have already been killed, and tens of thousands displaced.
Some blood thirsty fools are asking for more bloodshed in this highly tensed country. Some “Leaders” are asking for forceful eviction of President Gbagbo, which really means intervening militarily.
The Ivorian military is fully behind their president, which is in line with the Ivory Coast constitution. Gbagbo has the Young patriots behind him, which is basically an armed militia. Ouattara has the armed rebels behind him, and in the case of an invasion, foreign militaries will back him up. The big question is, who will back up the innocent voters of Ivory Coast? Who will back up the children and the mothers of Ivory Coast? Who will back up the youth of Ivory Coast?
The International media has tried to portray Gbagbo as the one who is refusing to dialogue, whereas since the crisis began, he has always called for talks, saying that that is the African way of solving conflicts.
Gbagbo has even called for a recount of the votes or another re-run. He is the legitimate president, but for the sake of peace, he is asking for a re run.
On January 5th 2011, during a live interview of France24, Ouattara was asked whether he would accept a re-run, and he gave a definite no, adding that that is Gbagbo tactics of staying in power, and that he has been buying time since 4th December. That was on 5th January. A proper run off would at most take 20 days to organise and conduct. 22 days have already passed, since that interview.
The way forward is for the ECOWAS, and the AU to organise for a re-run in Ivory Coast, where AU officials together with independent Ivorian officials can conduct the elections afresh, and whoever wins takes the seat.
The cost of even a one-day invasion will be hundreds of time more that it will cost to do a re-run. The number of people who will die, the number of women who will be rapped, the number of people who will be maimed will be unimaginable.
If Ouattara doesn’t fear the run off, then by now he must have realised that Gbagbo has “bought” enough time, and he is probably going to buy more and hence accept the re-run offer.

In this article, i might have portrayed Gbagbo as a very good person, of which he is not, talking about his excesses would fill several pages, but on this specific matter, if we do not stick to what the constitution states, a constitution that was passed by the people of Ivory Coast in the year 2000 through a referendum, then what precedence are we setting?
We wouldn’t want a situation where the best thief is announced winner, this must be discouraged, and it is even an abuse to this bourgeoisie democracy itself.
But the will of the Ivorian people, through their ballot, their representatives and their constitution should be respected.

Conclusion
It is always said that African problems need African solutions.
Nicholas Sarkozy should know that we will provide African Solutions to these French-made problems.
Barrack Obama should know that we will provide African Solutions to these American-made problems.
The “International Community” should know that we will provide African Solutions to these Imperialist-made problems.

Benedict Wachira
27th January 2011
22:48pm


References
Constitution of Ivory Coast (English) http://abidjan.usembassy.gov/ivoirian_constitution2.html
The map showing the North-South Divide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11681134

No comments:

Post a Comment