Amidst the violence in Libya, the ongoing crisis in Cote d'Ivoire' seems to have been forgotten--or at least ignored since it didn't seem much was happening. This week though, things are taking a turn for the more violent. Yesterday, six pro-Ouattara protesters were killed, along with ten pro-Gbagbo soldiers, right as an African Union delegation visited (again) to try and find a solution. Today, fighting erupted in the west of the country.
UPDATE: the BBC reports that heavy fighting has erupted in Abidjan and continues on the border with Liberia
What's the background to all this?
Basically, the country's internationally-recognized President, Alassane Ouattara, is trying to choke off the resources of his predecessor. While the UN Security Council agreed to send 2,000 extra peacekeepers to the country to help ensure security, Ouattara ordered a suspension of cocoa exports. This matters because cocoa is Cote d'Ivoire's biggest source of income (and the country is the world's largest producer of cocoa, for a look a cocoa futures since the crisis began in November, see here).
Since the November elections, the international community has been trying to choke off aincome to election loser Laurent Gbagbo: the EU and the US have imposed sanctions, Switzerland has frozen Gbago and loyalist assets, the ECOWAS central bank has rescinded Gbagbo's authority to spend money, and big Western banks have ceased operations.
In response, Gbagbo has tried to take control of some of the banks but ECOWAS controls the internet-based system for money transfers and they've shut it down. Gbagbo has also requested cocoa exporters to pay in hard cash but even that isn't working so well since many international companies know their governments recognize Ouattara's government (this week the US accepted the credentials of his ambassador to Washington) and they don't want to be sanctioned for supporting Gbagbo. All this to say, banning cocoa exports is one more way to make the Army and civil servants understand that, eventually, Gbagbo won't have enough money to pay their salaries. This has led to a run on banks--for the reasons you would imagine.
So what does this deadlock mean for Ivorian people: well, the economy is in the dumps, the UN reports that 40,000 Ivorians have fled to Liberia--which in itself is an indication of how bad things could get (who flees to Liberia?), and AU mediation is making the terrible recommendation that the two rivals should share power (a la Zimbabwe). ECOWAS has repeatedly toyed with military intervention which is risky because Gbagbo still has a lot of loyal/competent forces. So the question remains, do we just wait until Gabgbo runs out of money and support or do we do something else? Or does that depend on how much violence spreads and how quickly?
AND UPDATE: At what point do UNOCI and the French Licorne forces start using force to implement their mandate to "protect civilians from imminent threat of violence?"
Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
UN Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Eritrea
The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Eritrea today by a vote of 13 to 2 (with Libya voting against and China abstaining). The sanctions (you can read the resolution here) include a travel ban and assets freeze on Eritrean officials and, of course, an arms embargo on Eritrea.
Now this has been under discussion for a while because of Eritrea's long-standing role in supporting armed groups in Somalia, in particular Al-Shabab (if you want to read about that, check out the reports of the Security Council's Monitoring Group on Somalia, here). The other main justification for sanctions is Eritrea's refusal to withdraw from territory it took from Djibouti earlier this year in a border dispute.
A couple points of interest: as far as I know, this is the first time that the Security Council has imposed secondary sanctions on a country that's been accused of violating sanctions against a first country. In other words, these sanctions were imposed because Eritrea violated sanctions on Somalia.
Second, when the Security Council imposes sanctions it normally creates a sanctions committee. Well, instead of doing that, the Council has asked the Committee on Somalia to monitor the implementation of the Eritrea sanctions. In addition, the Council has now asked the Monitoring Group on Somalia to also track sanctions on Eritrea. All of this makes sense but, like I said, as far as I know, it's the first time it has happened.
Finally, for just a bit more context, you might want to read this Reuters story with excerpts from the interview the President, a former Marxist guerilla who led his country to independence from Ethiopia back in 1993, gave to the news service back in October.
Now this has been under discussion for a while because of Eritrea's long-standing role in supporting armed groups in Somalia, in particular Al-Shabab (if you want to read about that, check out the reports of the Security Council's Monitoring Group on Somalia, here). The other main justification for sanctions is Eritrea's refusal to withdraw from territory it took from Djibouti earlier this year in a border dispute.
A couple points of interest: as far as I know, this is the first time that the Security Council has imposed secondary sanctions on a country that's been accused of violating sanctions against a first country. In other words, these sanctions were imposed because Eritrea violated sanctions on Somalia.
Second, when the Security Council imposes sanctions it normally creates a sanctions committee. Well, instead of doing that, the Council has asked the Committee on Somalia to monitor the implementation of the Eritrea sanctions. In addition, the Council has now asked the Monitoring Group on Somalia to also track sanctions on Eritrea. All of this makes sense but, like I said, as far as I know, it's the first time it has happened.
Finally, for just a bit more context, you might want to read this Reuters story with excerpts from the interview the President, a former Marxist guerilla who led his country to independence from Ethiopia back in 1993, gave to the news service back in October.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Victor Bout Won't Be Extradited
There are several reports out about how suspected Russian arms dealer Victor Bout won his case in Thai court against extradition to the US. Even the Washington Post has an editorial about it. You'll recall that Bout was arrested last year on charges he worked to supply Colombian rebels with weapons. The DEA apparently posed as FARC officials trying to buy all sorts of goodies and then arrested him.
Now, Bout's role in ferrying weapons to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola, Congo, Afghanistan, and other places is well known. He's long had a fleet of airplanes and for a price, he's delivered said weapons everywhere anyone can think of. Reporters Doug Farah and Stephen Braun wrote a book about him. Nicolas Cage's character in Lord of War is supposedly based on him. If the book isn't enough (it's really an easy read, almost like a beach novel). The book even has a nice section on how the US hired Bout's company to help ferry supplies to Iraq during the initial phase of the war. If you want to read more about him, I'd also suggest reports of the UN Panels of Experts on Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and DRC--yes they're drier and you'll have to dig a bit more for the "fun" Victor Bout parts but the stories are well worth it.
Bout is also on the Liberia sanctions travel ban and assets freeze list, the list the Security Council maintains for people it views as having contributed to war in Liberia. Still, he continues to deny being an arms dealer and he's now won a motion to not be extradited to the US to be tried here.
Now I don't know if he's going to be tried in Thailand or not. The Russian authorities have expressed their pleasure at the Thai court's decision (of course the US has done the opposite). I also think that we need to focus on more than just one link in the illicit arms trade but let's hope this guy doesn't get off on just a technicality (namely that the US charges don't apply under Thai law) because that would set a really bad precedent. So I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Either that, or we'll have to make sure not to trick bad guys like this in Thailand anymore...that and we'll need to support judicial reform there too.
Now I don't know if he's going to be tried in Thailand or not. The Russian authorities have expressed their pleasure at the Thai court's decision (of course the US has done the opposite). I also think that we need to focus on more than just one link in the illicit arms trade but let's hope this guy doesn't get off on just a technicality (namely that the US charges don't apply under Thai law) because that would set a really bad precedent. So I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Either that, or we'll have to make sure not to trick bad guys like this in Thailand anymore...that and we'll need to support judicial reform there too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)