Coalition for Change – The Gambia Distances itself from Gambia Gov’ts Position on Cote D’Ivoire

Press Release Refccg18/4/11

The Coalition for Change – The Gambia (CCG) wishes to dissociate itself from the statements and position of the Gambia Government on events in Cote d’Ivoire.

The most recent inconsequential state televised statement of President Jammeh calling for fresh elections and refusing to recognize President Alassane Ouattara in defiance of the international community, despite findings by virtually all independent observers and monitors that Laurent Gbagbo lost the November election, underscores the pariah character of the Gambian regime. 

The amateurish manner in which the statement touched on an array of issues – Lumumba, Sankara, Compaore, imperialism, etc. – is a shame to many Gambians.

The world may not be aware, but the Gambian people know that anytime President Jammeh senses the hotspot, he starts throwing mud hoping it will stick.  From his pronouncements relating to AIDS, homosexuals, human rights defenders, the Iran arms scandal, the Libya crisis and Gaddafi, the Holy Qur’an burning, to the Cote d’Ivoire, Jammeh has always had something to hide or deflect. 

 The most recent rant also raises serious concerns on President Jammeh’s reaction if he were to lose the November 2011 presidential elections.  Will he, like Gbagbo defy all logic and reason, despite all evidence to the contrary and cling on to power by any means necessary?

President Jammeh’s latest remarks further strengthen the resolve of the CCG and progressive Gambians to ensure that 17 years of repressive rule must come to an end now.

The CCG is therefore calling on Gambians, the people of Cote d’Ivoire, West African Citizens, and the international community to disregard the Jammeh administration’s rants on Cote d’Ivoire.  The statement does not in any way reflect the position of the Gambian people vis-à-vis developments in that country.  The people of The Gambia support the position of ECOWAS, the International Community and recognize the democratically elected government of President Alasanne Ouattara.

The CCG takes this opportunity to congratulate Presidentt Ouattara, the Government and people of Cote D’Ivoire. 

The group also renews its call to all freedom and peace-loving organizations and individuals to support us in the campaign to end despotism and dictatorship in The Gambia.

SIGNED:

CCG EXECUTIVE

April 18, 2011

CONTACTS:

NDey Tapha Sosseh, Secretary-General / Spokesperson SGCoalitonForChangeGambia@gmail.com

CoalitonForChangeGambia@gmail.com, TheGambiaVoice@gmail.com, ccgtg411@gmail.com

TWITTER: @ChangeGambia, @KomboMansa, @TheGambiaVoice

Facebook group: Coalition for Change – The Gambia

---

[i] Coalition for Change Gambia has as its members, journalists, lawyers, doctors, businessmen/women and civil society groups in and outside The Gambia concerned about the deteriorating state of affairs in The Gambia. Further information and details, including requests for membership can be accessed and processed through the Secretary General.

[ii] Interested media organisations should contact the Secretary General for more information.  Audio material is also available and can be accessed upon request.

Gambia News :Gambia's dictator spurns Ouattara as Ivory Coast president

Expatica  -The Gambian government said Saturday it would not recognise Alassane Ouattara as president of Ivory Coast following the ousting of his rival Laurent Gbagbo with the help of UN and French forces.

"The Gambia government would not recognise any president, including president Ouattara, or government in Africa that has been imposed by forces outside the African continent for whatever reason," a statement said.

"We know what those governments and presidents stand for in Africa as they loot African resources on behalf of the powers that brought them to power", the statement from the office of President Yahya Jammeh added.

The statement, which was also carried by state broadcaster GRTS, called for "an impartial and comprehensive investigation into all the atrocities carried out in Ivory Coast by a team of honest and decent Allah-fearing people."

"Alassane Ouattara and his forces cannot go scot-free and blame everything on President Laurent Gbagbo, who according to the Ivorian constitution is the legitimate president of Ivory Coast", it said.

Forces loyal to both sides have been accused of massacres in recent weeks as Ouattara, recognised as president by the United Nations and the African Union following a disputed vote in November, fought to take power.

"As far as we are concerned, the only solution to avert a long drawn-out civil war with all its attendance consequences in Ivory Coast is to reorganise presidential elections in the shortest possible time," the Gambian government said.

"In the meantime, an interim government of national unity should be formed without Alassane Ouattara as he also has a lot to answer for," it said.

"One thing that is very clear to all Africans today is that the plot to re-colonise Africa is very real and we most stand up to it."

Banjul called on the UN to ensure the safety, protection, and well being of Gbagbo, "the constitutionally legal president of Ivory Coast", and set him free.

"He cannot be tried while Alassane Ouattara, the internationally selected president of Ivory Coast, goes scot free after massacring thousands of civilians just to be president", the statement said.

Events in Ivory Coast "have vindicated us in our earlier assertion that Western neocolonialist-sponsored agents in Africa that owe allegiance only to themselves and their Western masters are ready to walk on thousands of dead bodies for the Presidency," it charged.

Côte d’Ivoire: Forces behind the crisis and what’s at stake

BY Maurice Fahe


As Côte d’Ivoire’s political deadlock continues, Maurice Fahe discusses the country’s geostrategic importance for the West, the long-term role of foreign multinationals in the country, the political implications of ‘Ivoirité’ and the differences between the current crisis and that of 2000.


Since 28 November 2010, the situation in Côte d’Ivoire has been one of two presidents, two governments. This situation would be amusing were the current and future consequences not pogroms, deaths, summary executions, arrests, illegal detentions and economic, social and human devastation. So how are we to make sense of recent developments?

THE CRISIS OF CAPITALISM AND THE WORSENING OF INTER-IVORIAN CONTRADICTIONS

We will settle here to return to the development of the crisis of capitalism, the handling of this crisis by capitalist policy and the resultant consequences, not only for the secondary imperialist powers but also and above all for the world’s dominated capitalist countries, particularly those in Africa. In so doing we will recall that from 1981, the dominant capitalist powers proclaimed, through the voice of President Reagan (supported by his European colleagues), ‘that they know better than the countries of the South themselves what’s good for them’ in dealing with the debt crisis which US policy had plunged them into in the first place. The Washington Consensus and structural adjustment policies were the results of this political stance which have been implemented and executed with such efficiency since this date, and remarkably so in Côte d’Ivoire.

The world’s largest producer of cocoa, with considerable mineral prospects (especially oil), UEMOA’s (Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine) largest economy, ECOWAS’s (Economic Community Of West African States) second largest, the main migrant hub in sub-Saharan Africa, located in the Gulf of Guinea and as a springboard into the hinterland countries (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), Côte d’Ivoire enjoys a role of undeniable geostrategic and geopolitical importance. The stakes for neoliberal policy in the country are high.

THE DRIVING FORCES BEHIND THE IVORIAN CRISIS AND WHAT’S AT STAKE

The interest of the United States in Africa and its clear will to establish itself in the Gulf of Guinea dictate the importance the country attaches to its presence in Côte d’Ivoire. Its presence in Côte d’Ivoire not only increases competition between imperialist rivals (of the Triad) for the conquest of markets and the control of raw materials but also heightens the greed of the secondary imperialist powers, notably France and its will to doggedly defend its zone of influence and place in the Ivorian market.

Yet in a country where the financial market is limited, privatisations benefit primarily from those with the capacity to mobilise considerable capital to buy up public sector or public–private firms. In the competition that sets American imperialism against the secondary imperialist powers (most notably France) for the control of the Ivorian agro-industrial sector, America wins the day. As American multinationals edge their way into Côte d’Ivoire, the United States is constructing, not in Lagos or in Accra, but in Abidjan, a surveillance centre covering all of sub-Saharan Africa, along with the most significant diplomatic representation in Africa south of the Sahara after South Africa.

In order to preserve its positions inherited from the colonial and post-colonial period and its place in the Ivorian market, France often has to lean on political power. This enables France to protect its interests, with the exception of the agro-industrial sector, notably the coffee–cocoa subsector where American competition is particularly tough, principally from the American multinationals (ADM, Cargill) but also from the Anglo-Suisse (Nestlé, Armajaro). In January 2001, the cocoa war begun in 1987 was essentially brought to an end. Although French interests remain predominant, American interests essentially control the strategic cocoa sector. The presence of such interests means that the United States can from now on use Côte d’Ivoire as a base of support for their policy of expansion in the Gulf of Guinea designed to guarantee at least 25 per cent of their oil supply in the near future. As for the European Union, in which France has fully integrated itself since the Single European Act, in addition to a number of special interests (AIGLON and REINART in cotton, the Belgian group SIPEF for palm oil, DOLE for bananas, PANWELL-GMG for rubber, etc), its interest in Côte d’Ivoire is increasing as the crisis of immigration intensifies. The EU believes that if Côte d’Ivoire proves itself capable of welcoming migratory fluxes to which it has closed its doors, the country would hold a solution to African immigration crisis. Under current conditions, this objective can only be reached if Côte d’Ivoire regains peace and stays open for business.

FORMAL DEMOCRACY AND THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF THE IVORIAN SITUATION

On 30 April 1990, the freedom of participation in lawful political activity was granted to groups and classes hostile to the one-party system. Meanwhile, Bédié had hauled himself up to power thanks to the death of Houphouët-Boigny, the benefit of the application of Article 11 of the constitution of 3 November 1960 and the help of Paris, only to find himself faced with a fierce competitor in Alassane Ouattara, the former prime minister of Houphouët-Boigny. As he wasn’t certain of winning a free electoral confrontation against Ouattara, he decided instead to oust him. For this he had not only to erase the memory of profiteering which had stuck to him like a leech since his journey to the head of the Ministry of Finance, but also and above all to award a legal dressing to the stripping of eligibility he imposed on those he knew to oppose him. So on 13 December 1994, as the executive authority, Bédié passed, through a national assembly at his complete devotion, an electoral law which under the pretext of reserving the right to vote for nationals only reserved eligibility to the presidency of the republic to people of Ivorian origin. A few months later, this restrictive, reactionary system – which immediately excluded Ouattara and a section of the ruling class from universal suffrage – received the name ‘Ivorité’.

In resorting to such a problematic political distraction, Bédié simultaneously demonstrated his incapacity to achieve the conditions necessary for the collective domination of the ruling Ivorian classes. For this domination depended on the rotation of the ruling classes at the head of the state which was as essential for the concealment of the country’s widespread poverty as it was for allowing the continued pursuit of empty policies and the country’s economic pillage. This explains his overthrow and the indifference in which he made himself part of France yet linked to Côte d’Ivoire by a defence treaty with a secret clause requiring him to save the regime in the case of internal subversion. The same causes produce the same effects: Bédié’s conversion to ‘Ivorité’ and refusal under this same principle to organise open elections to all who condemn General Guei and defend both his fall and the conditions in which it occurred. In offering a constitutional legitimacy to ‘Ivorité’,Guei destroyed the hope of a possible reconciliation of the ruling classes and in so doing a return to the conditions of order indispensable to the pursuit of neoliberal policies. Consequently, he condemned himself and promoted Gbagbo, the only ‘true Ivorian’ still in the race.

On 26 October 2000, Gbagbo was ‘finally recognised as the winner’ by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court after protestors supported by a military and police squadron stormed the palace, forcing General Guei to flee. On 24 October, Gbagbo proclaimed himself head of state of Côte d’Ivoire, had declared the dissolution of the transition government (…) asked all militants to rise up to obstruct the imposter (…) and that (…) Ivorian patriots take to the street until the law is recognised and until Guei backs down.

An electoral victory, a victorious insurrection or a successful putsch? It remains but the taking of power by Gbagbo, which gave place to pogroms, the massacre of more than 300 protestors, of which at least 200 republican militants whom the party had called to challenge the presidential elections, and a mass grave of 57 victims. After Djeny Kobena (general secretary of RDR) had been declared Ghanaian and consequently stateless and ineligible in 1995, after the candidature of Alassane Ouattara had been rejected for ‘doubtful nationality’ in 2000, the ‘Ivorité’ enshrined in the constitution produced these most terrible effects. People didn’t want to see so as to see nothing. In the end, it seems that it was the retreat of Guei that allowed Côte d’Ivoire to avoid a similar scenario to that of today.

October 2000 appears in this way like a dress rehearsal that was paving the way for the current situation. Yet the most likely hypothesis today is that the showdown is a conscious and systematic strategy of the taking or preservation of power by the principal political representation of the Ivorian petty bourgeoisie and of its boss, Laurent Gbagbo. This, along with his political practice, leaves one to think that Gbagbo would not have obtained a majority in an open and transparent electoral process free from violence. From this hypothesis follows that after noisy and principled condemnations, with the self-interest of those involved coming to the fore, the ‘international community’ would end up aligning itself with the opinion of whoever held real power, which in this instance would be Gbagbo. Gbagbo imagined that he could, as in 2000, proclaim himself elected. To do so he was hoping not only to use the weaknesses of his enemy and the opposition to the ‘international community’s’ interests, but also the aspirations of the African people to the freedom and total independence of Africa. This explains the deceptively anti-colonial propaganda and of the pseudo-nationalisations that have been flowing like a flood since 28 November 2010.

Although strange, unsettling and desperate, the situation of the two ‘presidents’ at the head of the same Côte d’Ivoire is not simply the reproduction of a situation already seen in October 2000. The current situation is the immediate consequence of the failure of various efforts to politically neutralise Ouattara, implemented by men and political parties who, for the needs of the survival of their regime and to prolong their own presence at the head of the state, present themselves to Ivoirians dressed in the banner of red, white and blue. As with Bédié and Guei yesterday, Gbagbo today does not represent the interests of the hurting Ivorian people. He is neither anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist nor patriotic in the sense that to be patriotic means to defend national interests. An examination of Côte d’Ivoire’s economic development since 26 October 2000 is enough to realise this.

Even if Ouattara will not resolve all the problems facing Ivoirians as his campaign slogan leaves one to believe, at the least – hope the Ivoirian masses who still believe in a true democracy – his rule will establish the permanent collapse of chauvinism draped in the coat of patriotism, otherwise known as ‘Ivorité’, and a return to peace. The Ivoirian people undeniably aspire to freedom, justice, peace and bread. Ouattara is suggesting to them that they ‘live together’. It’s the belief in this campaign promise, but above all the aspiration to change which explains, for right or for wrong, the popular support he receives. The future will tell us if this support is justified. As for the real question of freedom, justice, peace and bread, the answer remains subject to the recovery of sovereignty and independence, the liquidation of the domination of the ruling classes and imperialist powers and the liquidation of the current semi-colonial state. In today’s conditions, neither Ouattara nor Gbagbo is capable of bringing an adequate response to this question.

BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF PAMBAZUKA NEWS 

Africa :Crisis in Cote d'Ivoire: What Impact on Women?

By Massan d'Almeida,

On  28 November 2010, Côte d’Ivoire held a second round of presidential elections, following a first round, which took place in October 2010 after several postponements. Fourteen candidates participated in the first round, and Alassane Ouattara and Laurent Gbagbo, the two candidates who garnered the most votes, made it to the second round of the polls. Gbagbo is the incumbent president. After the elections, the Independent Electoral Commission declared Ouattara the winner, but these results were invalidated by the Ivorian Constitutional Court which declared his rival, Gbagbo, the president-elect of Côte d’Ivoire.

This precipitated a crisis in the country. Gbagbo ‘refused to yield to international pressure and withdraw from his position’ in favour of Ouattara, who was recognised by the entire international community.

Mata Coulibaly and Honorine Sadia Vehi Toure, the two women’s rights advocates whom we interviewed, explained how the population is experiencing this situation: ‘We are going through a crisis and this is very difficult. There is tension in the country. Our days are filled with uncertainty because at any moment, a strike can be called,’ said Coulibaly. Toure added: ‘this is a real crisis and we are under tremendous stress. We do not know what tomorrow will bring. The social situation is deteriorating day by day. So it is highly stressful and frustrating.’

The political crisis in Côte d’Ivoire has had major diplomatic, financial, economic and social repercussions on the population, including on women and the organisations that defend their rights.

Gbagbo’s refusal to step down has prompted several international organizations, including the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union and the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) to take punitive measures against him, his family and close friends, and the state.

IMPACT OF THE CRISIS ON THE DAILY LIVES OF IVORIANS

The economic cost of Côte d’Ivoire’s conflict between 2002 and 2007 was severe: the gross domestic product (GDP) per person dropped by 15 per cent between 2000 and 2006 and poverty consequently increased. Côte d’Ivoire’s rank in the Human Development Index (HDI) dropped from 154 in 1999 to 166 in 2007, and later rose to 149 in 2010. Before the post-electoral crisis, the economic outlook for Côte d’Ivoire seemed to have improved, with a growth of 3.8 per cent in 2009 and optimistic forecasts for an increase of revenue from cocoa and petroleum exports.

The current crisis aggravates a rather precarious situation and has accentuated the impoverishment of the population. It has had a serious impact on the daily lives of Ivorian households, causing prices of essential products to rise sharply and encouraging speculation. As Toure emphasised: ‘Market prices have soared so much that some essential products such as oil, sugar, meat and onions are difficult to obtain. This is a real hardship for households. Before the crisis, many female-headed households could only afford one meal a day, so one can only imagine how much more difficult it is now for those families. Everyone is suffering.’

Coulibaly added: ‘Life seems to go in slow motion. Prices have soared. For example, sometimes there is a shortage of natural gas. A quantity of coal that previously cost CFAF100 now costs CFAF200. A kilo of ‘oignon dur’* has increased from CFAF450 to CFAF1,000 while onions from Niamey have increased from CFAF600 to CFAF1,500, and a kilo of beetroots from CFAF1,900 to CFAF3,000. These examples illustrate the impact of this crisis on the shopping basket and this price increase has a tangible impact on the living conditions of Ivorians. Salaries remain the same although prices are surging. This situation forces women to economize more in order to feed their families. Regardless of whether it is a woman or man who is the head of household, everyone has similar difficulties to overcome.’ Sophie confirmed that some food prices have doubled, while those of other products, such as oil, have tripled. She said that it is extremely difficult for middle-income households to feed themselves because everything has become so expensive.

The situation is no different in other cities and towns in the country. Coulibaly stated: ‘The current crisis has affected the whole Ivorian territory. In Korhogo in the north, Bouaké in the centre of the country, and Man and Duokoué in the west, food prices have almost doubled. The population is tired and is growing poorer every day. In addition, the private sector is threatened with redundancies, which could lead to famine for parts of the population. We have just learned that with the closure of the Abidjan and San Pedro ports, we will run out of gas in a few days. Côte d’Ivoire exports all its products. Another concern is that HIV/AIDS patients are no longer provided with anti-retroviral drugs and this has resulted in a proliferation of the disease and the aggravation of existing cases.’

Toure paints a similar picture of the situation, stating: ‘Impoverishment is felt by everyone throughout the territory. Before the elections, the country had not yet unified and therefore in the central, northern and western areas, the living conditions were already poor. The south was not spared, but it suffered to a lesser degree. But now I can assure you that now no area is better than another. Whether it be towns, villages, urban or rural areas, it is the same unbearable situation all over.’

VIOLENCE, RIGHTS AND SECURITY VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

After the first, relatively peaceful round of elections at the end of October 2010, reports of violence and abuse in different regions of the country began to emerge. These incidents indicated a serious deterioration of the general human rights situation and are a reminder of the atrocities committed during the last decade. African, European and American human rights organisations, in particular Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, have repeatedly sounded the alarm about the situation.

The United Nations Human Rights Council held a special session on Côte d’Ivoire in Geneva on 23 December 2010, during which the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a speech and the High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay strongly condemned the human rights violations committed in Côte d’Ivoire. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has also voiced its concerns about the situation.

Most of the violence reported to date is carried out during night raids led by the security forces and other groups in the neighbourhoods of Abidjan that are considered to be predominantly populated by Ouattara’s supporters. Human rights organisations have noted a series of kidnappings under similar circumstances. The victims of these kidnappings were declared missing or were found dead. Coulibaly confirmed this stating: ‘Acquaintances of ours have been kidnapped.’ According to Sophie, these are ‘raids that are violent, ethnic-based and politically motivated, targeted against individuals or groups of people whose neighbours have informed on them. The perpetrators are mercenaries who are paid to commit these murders.’

According to independent sources, human rights and women’s rights activists are living in a state of constant anxiety with respect to their safety. An experienced civil society advocate, who requested to remain anonymous, told IRIN: ‘I have been in hiding ever since being threatened over two weeks ago. Sometimes, it looks as though the situation is about to calm down. This is often the impression in the daytime, but one never knows what will happen once night falls.’ Toure confirmed: ‘We are working within a context of fear. We are truly sad about what is happening in our country. We cannot carry out our work openly for fear of reprisals. In spite of this, we are working, relying on God, and hoping that our country will rapidly overcome this situation.’ Coulibaly stated: ‘As a representative of the Democracy and Human Rights Fund (FDDH), I do not feel safe.’

IMPACT OF THE CRISIS ON WORK ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS

The punitive sanctions imposed on Côte d'Ivoire have had a very negative impact on non-governmental organisations that depend mainly on international funds for their survival. Toure explained that most of their financial partners in the United Nations system and the World Bank have closed their offices, which has in turn forced the NGOs to suspend most of their activities. Furthermore, due to political instability, it is increasingly difficult to operate as normal. Coulibaly stated: ‘nothing is sure. We have to tailor our plans according to how events evolve. We are afraid to go to work and sometimes we receive information or hear rumours that cause us to stay away from work.’

OTHER RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CRISIS: THE WIDENING OF THE DIVISION

The riots that broke out in September 2002 in Côte d’Ivoire divided the country between the south, run by the Gbagbo government, and the north, controlled by rebel forces led by Guillaume Soro, the current prime minister in the Ouattara administration. However, in 2008, after signing the Ouagadougou Agreement, the country began a reunification process, which led to the consensual organisation of the recent presidential elections.

However, some people are afraid that the alliance between Soro and Ouattara will cause a revival of the divisions, and will introduce a religious dimension to the divide. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that there are different opinions on this subject, as highlighted by Toure. ‘No matter what is being said, the people in Côte d’Ivoire do not promote division,’ she said. ‘It is the politicians who have put us into this situation because of their personal interests. In the south, there are Christians and Muslims, and there are also people from the north, and we live together in harmony, at least those who have understood that division does not suit us, which is most of us. The same is true in the north. Therefore, there is no real division in Côte d’Ivoire, even if this is what they want you to believe. Ivorians have suffered through ten years of crisis. In the end, everyone was tired of this. Our will to leave it behind was shown by the high voter turnout in the elections: 83 per cent in the first round and over 70 per cent in the second round.’ However, Coulibaly does not agree: ‘the division is inevitable. The politicians accuse the people of the north of being rebels. Women are divided in the markets. Some pro-Gbagbo market women tell their pro-Ouattara counterparts to ask their leader to build them their own market.’

The current situation in Côte d’Ivoire is worrying. The Ivorian population, which underwent almost a decade of crisis, strongly desires that a peaceful outcome to this situation be found quickly for the benefit of everyone. Human and women’s rights organisations are particularly affected because funding opportunities for their work are becoming scarce. Furthermore, growing fears for their personal safety reduce their capacity to engage, and very few of them dare to openly express their analysis of the situation. Coulibaly confided to AWID (Association for Women’s Rights in Development) that, as far as she knew, no public action has been undertaken by human rights organisations and that only the Civil Society Agreement of Côte d’Ivoire (CSCI), which is a leading organisation in the country, has made proposals for a solution. Other organisations prefer not to issue statements because they do not share the same point of view or analysis of the situation. However, Toure stated that there are discreet initiatives being carried out by around 20 organisations and women’s networks to encourage the two protagonists to protect the lives of women and children, and to seek a peaceful outcome to the crisis.

Source:pambazuka.org