Meanwhile...back in Cote d'Iviore

[Prannon]

From the BBC.

Ivory Coast: 'Heavy fighting' near Gbagbo residence

There has been heavy fighting in Ivory Coast's main city, Abidjan, between forces loyal to the UN-recognised president, Alassane Ouattara, and supporters of incumbent Laurent Gbagbo.

Witnesses have reported hearing intense gunfire near Mr Gbagbo's residence, while Mr Ouattara's supporters say they have taken control of state television.

His government earlier closed Ivory Coast's borders and declared a curfew.

Mr Gbagbo has refused to relinquish the presidency since November's election.

But the national army has put up almost no resistance since Mr Ouattara's supporters launched an offensive on Monday.

Pro-Ouattara forces reportedly now control about 80% of the country.

'Final assault'

As the battle for control of the country appeared to reach a climax, gunfire was heard around several strategic buildings in Abidjan.

Heavy fighting was reported close to the headquarters of RTI state TV and Mr Gbagbo's residence, both in the northern district of Cocody.

"The gunfire has been intense and they're shooting in four or five directions at a time. There's a lot of people," a resident told the AFP news agency. "It looks like a final assault."

A spokesman for Mr Ouattara's government, Patrick Achi, said the former president had so far shown no signs of giving up.

Mr Achi said Ouattara loyalists had taken control of RTI. This could not be confirmed, but the channel went off-air late on Thursday.

A spokesman for Mr Gbagbo said his forces were still fighting at the TV station.

Mr Gbagbo has not been seen in public for weeks. His residence is mainly protected by members of the elite presidential guard, and is located on a peninsula in Abidjan's lagoon.

"Gbagbo is in his house. I'm certain. He hasn't gone anywhere," said Mr Achi.

Earlier, Mr Ouattara's government said Ivory Coast's land, sea and air borders had been closed until further notice. It also declared that there would be a curfew from 2100 GMT to 0600 GMT in Abidjan until Sunday.

And after looting was reported in several parts of the city, UN and French peacekeepers took control of Abidjan's international airport.

The BBC's John James in Bouake says growing panic seems to be setting in among Mr Gbagbo supporters, especially following the decision of the head of the army, Gen Phillippe Mangou, to seek refuge with his wife and five children at the home of the South African ambassador.

On Thursday evening, Mr Ouattara's television channel featured several high-level military officers pledging allegiance to his government. A source also told the BBC that the head of the gendarmerie, Edouard Kassarate, had defected.

The head of the UN mission, Choi Young-jin said that as many as 50,000 soldiers, police and gendarmes had abandoned Mr Gbagbo, with only the Republican Guard and special forces personnel remaining loyal.

"[My troops] have come to restore democracy and ensure respect of the vote by the people," Mr Ouattara said in an address. "To all those who are still hesitating, whether you are generals, superior officers, officers, sub officers, rank-and-file... there is still time to join your brothers-in-arms."

Western diplomats say it is only a matter of time now before Mr Gbagbo flees or is captured, our correspondent says.

Mr Ouattara's government is giving assurances that the outgoing president will not be harmed, he adds. They say, instead, that Mr Gbagbo will be made available to the International Criminal Court.

Lightning advances

Earlier, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon again demanded that Mr Gbagbo immediately cede power to Mr Ouattara "to enable the full transition of state institutions to the legitimate authorities".

The US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, urged both sides to exercise restraint and protect civilians. Both Mr Gbagbo and his wife would be held accountable if significant violence broke out, he added.

Mr Ouattara was internationally recognised as president last year, after the electoral commission declared him winner of the November run-off vote.

The UN, which helped organise the vote, certified it as legitimate. However, Mr Gbagbo claimed victory after the Constitutional Council overturned Mr Ouattara's win.

The forces supporting Mr Ouattara have made lightning advances since Monday, moving out from their base in the northern half of the country.

On Wednesday, his fighters captured Ivory Coast's capital, Yamoussoukro, and the key port of San Pedro. Mr Gbagbo's hometown of Gagnoa also fell.

Since the crisis began in December, one million people have fled the violence - mostly from Abidjan - and at least 473 people have been killed, according to the UN.

Sanctions and a boycott on cocoa exports in what is the world's biggest producer of cocoa beans have brought West Africa's second-biggest economy to its knees, with banks closed for more than a month.

An armed rebellion in 2002 split the nation in two - a division the elections were meant to heal.

[Balrog]

Fighting in the streets continues.

Knowing France's past involvement in this region of the world, I'm curious as to any role they've played lately behind the scenes.

[Balrog]

Speaking of France, they just seized control of the airport and there's word of a massacre potentially carried out by Ouattara forces. If it does turn out that they were the ones who did it, it would certainly complicate matters.

[fgalkin]

Where's the UN resolution? Where are the no-fly zones, I wonder.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[MarshalPurnell]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12960308

There, I'd say.

And seriously, can we stop with the detached, ironical comments over Libya? There are differences between Libya and *insert random country where bad things happen* that, generally, make intervention more necessary, more possible and more likely to be more successful. And anyone who wants to toss in "but Libya has OIL" should just be beaten around the head for being stupid.

[Prannon]

Doing a little cursory research, there appear to have been a large number of Security Council resolutions concerning Cote d'Ivoire back in 2004 and 2005. I'm not checking over them in any detail, but there's a lot about stopping the violence and authorizing the French peace keeping force to remain for a little more time and this and that. A lot of them make reference to two resolutions passed in 2004, particularly Resolution 1528, which establishes a United Nations Operation in Cote d'Ivoire, and even that resolution makes reference to earlier United Nations missions in the country.

Far as I can tell, France and the UN have a perfectly legitimate presence in the country which has simply not caught public attention like Libya did. And, of course, since they don't have (as much) public attention, those forces can do pretty much what they want without much scrutiny.

[Thanas]

And seriously, can we stop with the detached, ironical comments over Libya? There are differences between Libya and *insert random country where bad things happen* that, generally, make intervention more necessary, more possible and more likely to be more successful.

More necessary, more possible and more likely to be more succesful than in Darfur?

EDIT: Not that I argue for the US to get involved by that, but the claim that Libya was the worst thing ever is hilarious.

[MarshalPurnell]

Which is why I tossed in generally as a qualifier. Of course intervention in Darfur was more necessary, though I have my doubts on the score of more possible given the geography; the coast of the Mediterranean is far easier to project power to than interior Africa, and of course the politics were such to make getting UN approval of a mission in Libya much easier than doing so for Darfur.

[Simon_Jester]

When it comes to "more possible..."

Libya has a long Mediterranean coastline that offers easy access for the combined navies of Europe and the US, and there are several nearby airbases that can be used to maintain an international air force to enforce a no-fly zone and bomb Qaddafi's tanks.

Darfur is far inland, away from the sea, and there are no major airbases nearby. This makes bringing air power, or airlifted troops, into the region difficult.

In Libya, the main threat to the rebels is Qaddafi's heavy weapons- his tanks, artillery and planes. It's relatively easy for a modern air force to destroy these, leaving the rebels in a good position to consolidate their position in Cyrenaica while relatively free from Qaddafi's counterattacks.

In Darfur, much of the killing is and was done by 'militias' on the ground, who are much harder to stop without physically occupying the country using large bodies of infantry. It's possible that the locals could protect themselves if we took out the Sudanese government's heavy weapons, but I wouldn't want to count on it.

As to "more likely to be successful," there's the above point about what would need to be done to let the locals protect themselves. To make things worse, ethnic tensions are harder to suppress than unpopular dictators.

In Libya, Qaddafi is only one man, and if we really want to we can simply kill or evict him from the country by force. Remove Qaddafi and the rebels win by default, though what the postwar government would look like is an open question for now.

In Darfur, to fix the place we'd have to somehow remove the motives that drive the Sudanese government to attack the people of Darfur, and that drive the Janjaweed and associated groups to fight on their behalf. We'd have to physically restrain the Arabs from trying to dominate, oppress, and ultimately drive out non-Arabs. This would take a prolonged ground commitment, and when the ground troops are removed there's no reason to expect the same disaster to flare up in ten or fifteen years.

Remember how the UN still maintains an administration in Kosovo? We're looking at something like that.

So yes, I expect that intervening in Libya (to the extent that we have done so far) is going to be easier and more likely to produce good results than intervening in Darfur with the same scale of foce commitment.

[Thanas]

If those are the criteria you are looking for, why is there no intervention in Bahrain? Much easier.

[Lonestar]

If those are the criteria you are looking for, why is there no intervention in Bahrain? Much easier.

Probably because the Bahraini government hasn't publically said that they would "show no mercy" to the rebels as government forces approached a rebel-held city of 3 quarters of a million.

As long as there is a certain degree of ambiguity one can ignore it. Most of the Europeans(well, the French and British) didn't want to be accused of standing by when they knew a slaughter was going to happen in Benghazi.

[Zaune]

If those are the criteria you are looking for, why is there no intervention in Bahrain? Much easier.

A contributing factor might be the fact that Bahrain is a tiny island nation that presents zero strategic threat to its neighbours. If the King of Bahrain gets the boot by one of his senior generals then the worst they can do is make a nuisance of themselves for a few weeks, but the same couldn't be said for Libya before we started clobbering their serious firepower.

[Block]

If those are the criteria you are looking for, why is there no intervention in Bahrain? Much easier.

Scale? There's a big difference in the Bahraini King being harsh in his methods of maintaining security and the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. Qaddafi was all set to flatten major metropolitan areas with artillery barrages; that's a whole different level of massacre from what we've seen so far in places like Bahrain and Syria.

Another factor is simple asset availability- the US has only so many carrier battle groups, the European nations have only so many planes and so much logistics capacity. We can't stage a major military intervention over ten countries at once, so a certain amount of prioritization and triage is unavoidable.

[TimothyC]

If those are the criteria you are looking for, why is there no intervention in Bahrain? Much easier.

Fifth Fleet has it's headquarters there. But you know this I am sure. US foreign policy should serve US interests (not Thanas' morality), and as such we do our thing in Libya, not other places. I make no claims as to the morality of this, only that it is.

[Shroom Man 777]

Then nobody should claim that US actions are done in the name of morality or for helping people, but should honestly say that it is being done to serve XYZ US interests since similar things are happening elsewhere without getting intervened by the US because it is not in their interest because they are actually buddies with the dictators in that other place?

It would be better actually if the US just said it was doing what it was doing due to its interests, rather than cloaking it in obvious hypocritical bullshit. Grow a thicker skin, at least when people try to justify the US' interventions by doing things out of their own interest without using nonsense moral/just causes, nobody will call them out on the hypocrisy.


I admit though, it's genius. The US brilliantly orchestrated this Libya thing. The second Qadaffi acted like a douche, the USA gets the Saudis to agree on the no-fly zone and NOBODY can complain about the US intervention because everyone really bought into the whole saving people from Daffy's slaughter and initially it looked like the Arab League wanted the US to come in and save 'em. Only now, later, are we seeing the cracks and the lies. But still, it's hard to actually assault the USA for this because "oh no the rebelses!", because Daffy really is a psycho and the rebels really do need help.

The ambiguity of the situation means that the USA's justifications on a "moral" intervention aren't like the bullshit Iraqi WMD thing. A lot of people knew or thought the Iraqi WMD thing was pure bullshit from the start. With Libya? It's hard to tell, because the US actually isn't justifying its intervention with imaginary lies. Gaddafi murdering civilians isn't as imaginary as WMDs or God.

At least this is one thing that Zerobamasamabinladenarama did better than the Bush administration did. He sold Libya way better than Shrubya did Iraq. A lot of people smelled bullshit about Iraq, at home and abroad. But Libya? It's harder to do with that, because there's no WMD bullshit.

This just proves we should support Barry Muslim Defense (BMD) and American Barry Muslims (ABM) all the more.

EDIT:

I mean, Jesus, the hypocritical bullshit in Libya is way more better cloaked than Iraq.

America agreed with Saudis to invade Libya and kill dictator and support protesters while agreeing so that the Saudis invade Bahrain and kill protesters to support dictator so that the Saudis and Arab Leagues goes thumbs ups. This is way more cunning bullshit. Barry and Hillery are fucking geniuses

[Simon_Jester]

I find myself forced to ask.

Which is better:

1) The US intervenes in one country to topple a dictator.
2) The US intervenes in no country to topple a dictator.

It seems that we see more criticism of US actions in case (1), because in case (1) people say "well, if you topple Dictator Achmed you should also topple Dictator Balukamuki!"

But this strikes me as counterintuitive. I'm not sure I understand.

[Pelranius]

The UN has pretty much intervened in Cote d'Iviore now.

U.N. helicopters fired on a camp controlled by Gbagbo on Monday to prevent the use of heavy weapons against civilians and U.N. peacekeepers, a U.N. spokesman said.

"The security situation has deteriorated dramatically" with an escalation of fighting between forces loyal to Ouattara and those loyal to Gbagbo, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday.

U.N. Peacekeeping Director Alain Le Roy told reporters the body is not taking sides in the conflict, but had to act after three days of fire from Gbagbo forces that left four U.N. peacekeepers seriously injured.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04 ... tml?hpt=T1

[Shroom Man 777]

I find myself forced to ask.

Which is better:

1) The US intervenes in one country to topple a dictator.
2) The US intervenes in no country to topple a dictator.

It seems that we see more criticism of US actions in case (1), because in case (1) people say "well, if you topple Dictator Achmed you should also topple Dictator Balukamuki!"

But this strikes me as counterintuitive. I'm not sure I understand.

But what happens if it can only intervene by gaining support of the Saudis, and can only do that if it allows the Saudis to untopple a dictator by killing folks (Bahrain)?

That defeats the point. Intervene in one country to topple a dictator while allowing an intervention in another country to prop a dictator.

If you were using the "helping people" justification, it obviously doesn't work here.

If you use Tim's "foreign interests not Thanas interests!" Barry Muslim Destroy (BMD) thing, it totally works since your objective is foreign interests and supporting (dictator) allies and eliminating (dictator) enemies rather than helping human beings.

The pretense of genuinely helping people is thrown into shit when you're simultaneously making deals with the Saudis to stomp Bahrainians.

Yes, you will be saving Libyans perhaps, but you're also fucking over the Bahrainians. It's a shitty way to "help" people. But let's not kid ourselves, that's not what the US is there for. At least Tim is upfront about it. The bottom line is in foreign interests. Just as Bahrain is a US anchor, an intervention in Libya would also help secure another anchor for the US, securing its grip in the region and whatever.

Stating things frankly without doublespeak is good. This is why I love listening to Shep rattle. He says horrible things, but honest things too.

[Prannon]

According to this, Ouattara forces have captured the Presidential residence where many thought Gbagbo was hiding. No idea if he was there, though.

As far as UN forces engaging, they said that "this wasn't a declaration of war on Gbagbo, just that they wanted to protect civilians." Personally, I'm starting to think this is a kind of doublethink going on in the US and in western government circles in general. No one really wants to come out and say/do what they really mean or want to, which leads to these sort of half-assed situations, Libya included. I mean, I was thinking to myself: "Wouldn't it be nice if the US and the West just came out and said 'we want Qaddafi out?' and went for the whole package with no ambiguity? Because we all know that's the end goal. Why shroud it in bullshit?" Of course, I know they feel they have to because of international law and protocol and all that.

[Block]

I find myself forced to ask.

Which is better:

1) The US intervenes in one country to topple a dictator.
2) The US intervenes in no country to topple a dictator.

It seems that we see more criticism of US actions in case (1), because in case (1) people say "well, if you topple Dictator Achmed you should also topple Dictator Balukamuki!"

But this strikes me as counterintuitive. I'm not sure I understand.

But what happens if it can only intervene by gaining support of the Saudis, and can only do that if it allows the Saudis to untopple a dictator by killing folks (Bahrain)?

That defeats the point. Intervene in one country to topple a dictator while allowing an intervention in another country to prop a dictator.

If you were using the "helping people" justification, it obviously doesn't work here.

If you use Tim's "foreign interests not Thanas interests!" Barry Muslim Destroy (BMD) thing, it totally works since your objective is foreign interests and supporting (dictator) allies and eliminating (dictator) enemies rather than helping human beings.

The pretense of genuinely helping people is thrown into shit when you're simultaneously making deals with the Saudis to stomp Bahrainians.

Yes, you will be saving Libyans perhaps, but you're also fucking over the Bahrainians. It's a shitty way to "help" people. But let's not kid ourselves, that's not what the US is there for. At least Tim is upfront about it. The bottom line is in foreign interests. Just as Bahrain is a US anchor, an intervention in Libya would also help secure another anchor for the US, securing its grip in the region and whatever.

Stating things frankly without doublespeak is good. This is why I love listening to Shep rattle. He says horrible things, but honest things too.

There's no proof that said deal actually occured. There's a single report about it. No one else that I've found is running with that story.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I find myself forced to ask.

Which is better:

1) The US intervenes in one country to topple a dictator.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch."

[Simon_Jester]

I find myself forced to ask.

Which is better:

1) The US intervenes in one country to topple a dictator.
2) The US intervenes in no country to topple a dictator.

It seems that we see more criticism of US actions in case (1), because in case (1) people say "well, if you topple Dictator Achmed you should also topple Dictator Balukamuki!"

But this strikes me as counterintuitive. I'm not sure I understand.

But what happens if it can only intervene by gaining support of the Saudis, and can only do that if it allows the Saudis to untopple a dictator by killing folks (Bahrain)?

That defeats the point. Intervene in one country to topple a dictator while allowing an intervention in another country to prop a dictator.

If you were using the "helping people" justification, it obviously doesn't work here.

If you use Tim's "foreign interests not Thanas interests!" Barry Muslim Destroy (BMD) thing, it totally works since your objective is foreign interests and supporting (dictator) allies and eliminating (dictator) enemies rather than helping human beings.

The pretense of genuinely helping people is thrown into shit when you're simultaneously making deals with the Saudis to stomp Bahrainians.

Yes, you will be saving Libyans perhaps, but you're also fucking over the Bahrainians. It's a shitty way to "help" people. But let's not kid ourselves, that's not what the US is there for. At least Tim is upfront about it. The bottom line is in foreign interests. Just as Bahrain is a US anchor, an intervention in Libya would also help secure another anchor for the US, securing its grip in the region and whatever.

What would you do, Shroomy, if you were given power over the US and sincerely wanted to help people in this situation? I'm curious.

I find myself forced to ask.
Which is better:
1) The US intervenes in one country to topple a dictator.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch."

Naturally not.

So, is it better, from an international-morality standpoint, if powerful rich countries stay totally out of the affairs of poor ones ruled by despots?

Or if they become involved in some such countries but not others, and have to pick and choose based on which of the most egregious offenders they can tackle at a reasonable cost in money, blood, and expended political capital?

Or if they become involved in all such countries, to the exclusion of all other strategic goals, and inevitably watch a large percentage of their interventions turn to crap in ways that cause chaos in the region and leave virtually every nation on Earth subservient to one or more rich masters?

Or something else I haven't thought of yet?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Naturally not.

So, is it better, from an international-morality standpoint, if powerful rich countries stay totally out of the affairs of poor ones ruled by despots?

Or if they become involved in some such countries but not others, and have to pick and choose based on which of the most egregious offenders they can tackle at a reasonable cost in money, blood, and expended political capital?

Or if they become involved in all such countries, to the exclusion of all other strategic goals, and inevitably watch a large percentage of their interventions turn to crap in ways that cause chaos in the region and leave virtually every nation on Earth subservient to one or more rich masters?

Or something else I haven't thought of yet?

Since when did morality come into play for international politics? Most of these "poor countries" ruled by despots are supported by cash from abroad are they not? Ultimately, the question for any country that gets intervened, is whether they just traded one despot for another, and one that is friendlier to the country that intervened.

[K. A. Pital]

What is "international morality", Simon?