|
|
NPP on the situation in La Cote D'Ivore
and the implications of Ghana's equivocal
position
Ladies and gentlemen of the
media, thank you, once again, for showing up
in such strong numbers at such a short
notice. We are very grateful. I can assure
you that at this forum you are allowed to
ask a follow up question and we shall at
least attempt to answer more than half of
the questions you may ask.
We respectfully invited you here today to
express some concerns the New Patriotic
Party has over the situation in Cote
d’Ivoire and Ghana’s role in ongoing
international efforts to find a solution
that brings into being the democratic wishes
of the Ivorian people as expressed in the
November 28, 2010 presidential election.
Particularly worrying are the conflicting
signals that President Mills is giving on
Ghana’s position and the negative effect
this is having on international efforts to
resolve the crisis. Beyond the Castle, at
least, there is a clear, unadulterated
message of both the international community
and the Ivorian people that Allasane
Ouattara has been elected president of Cote
d'Ivoire, and that Laurent Gbagbo must yield
power and go.
Regrettably, Ghana is fast-losing face as a
major stumbling block against efforts to
bring to an end Gbagbo’s quasi-military
coup, which has been massively condemned by
a concerted combination of regional,
continental and international pressure.
SO WHAT NEXT AFTER ODINGA?
The Chief Mediator in the current crisis for
the African Union and the Economic Community
of West African States, Kenyan PM, Mr Raila
Odinga, after being rejected by Gbagbo, left
Abidjan this week pessimistic about former
President Gbagbo’s commitment to accepting
the offer of a peaceful exit. We wish to ask
President Mills: so what next?
The Prime Minister of Kenya, after visiting
Accra, sought to give clarity to Ghana’s
position on Cote d’Ivoire. After his
close-door consultations with President JEA
Mills, Mr Odinga came out to announce to the
press that “there’s been misunderstanding
and misrepresentation” of Ghana’s position
and that Ghana had never said that it was in
disagreement with the option of military
intervention.
If there is any confusion, misunderstanding
and misrepresentation of Ghana’s position
then the blame must go squarely to the
President and his team. Mr Odinga may be
forgiven; he may not have heard President
Mills moving his own lips by himself to
announce that he was against military
intervention.
Just this week, the Castle, the Office of
the President, deliberately leaked
information on a so-called “emerging
consensus’ among the three African
non-permanent members of the United Nations’
Security Council that “the military option
is no option” to finding a solution to the
political crisis at Cote d’Ivoire.
As to how the African Members, including
Nigeria, could take a position contrary to
that of their own countries, whose interest
they represent at the UN, was left to be
swept up and away by the whirlwind of
propaganda.
Indeed, the Communications Director at the
Presidency, Mr. Koku Anyidoho, very happily
declared on Wednesday, after circulating the
leaked internal memo to media houses, that
President John Mills was “humbly excited and
happy at the apparent endorsement of his
stance” against military intervention. He
described the purported ‘emerging consensus’
as a “well-thought out decision.”
Ghana’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Mohammed
Mumuni, to whom that confidential cable from
Ghana’s ambassador to the UN was addressed,
would not be denied his share of the
excitement. “It is in fact affirming that a
military option is no option at all. In
other words, in defining a formula for
resolving the Ivorian crisis, no resolve
should be made to military intervention… Now
this communication is in fact ruling out
military intervention all together and that
is very significant. It is also saying that
the United Nations (UN) should be neutral in
all of this” he announced to Citi FM.
The cable disclosed to us that the no to
military option was President Mills’
long-standing view. So why then did our
President sign up to an Ecowas decision to
which he had no intention of adhering? The
day after this self-serving so-called
‘vindication’ of President Mills’ position
was carried in the state-owned dailies and
propagated by government officials and NDC
activists, the same Koku Anyidoho was forced
to come out to say something exactly
opposite to his earlier expression of what
he said was the President’s view on the use
of ‘legitimate force.’
Yesterday, Mr Odinga told reporters that
“Ghana is not opposed to the use of
legitimate force,” to remove Mr Gbagbo from
office. Confirming this, Mr Anyidoho told
Joy FM, that “in the unlikely event of a
military action, Mills will not go against
it.”
WEAK AND INDECISIVE LEADERSHIP
Thus, after a short visit from the Kenyan
Prime Minister, our President felt compelled
to change his long-standing view just like
he did in Abuja on 24 December. What does
this tell us about our President, ladies and
gentlemen? Is this not the kind of
indecision and weak leadership that have
been alleged is dominating the affairs of
the state at the highest level?
In fact, finding what Ghana’s actual
position is on Cote d’Ivoire is as taxing as
locating the 1.6 million jobs that the
Mills-Mahama administration claims it
created in its first 12 months. It has been
a sorry exhibition of international
diplomacy and statesmanship, particularly on
a matter that is SO critical to regional
security and democracy in Africa.
A couple of weeks ago, within a matter of
five minutes on a single day at a particular
platform, President Mills managed to give a
very befuddling statement from which only
the intransigent Laurent Gbagbo could have
benefited. January 7 was the first time that
our President was asked by any journalist to
express Ghana’s position on any burning
international issue and he simply fuddled.
So damaging has this faux pas been that this
week, Ecowas has had to send high-powered
delegations, including the President of
Burkina Faso, Blaise Compoare and the
President of the Ecowas Commission, Victor
Gbeho, across the world, including London
and Paris, to reassure the international
community that Ecowas, indeed, remains
resolute on its decision to see to it that
the democratic will of the Ivorian people is
observed and in the shortest possible time.
But, how did Ghana, a nation that has won
international respect over the years for its
decisive, competent and clear leadership
role in resolving conflicts elsewhere get
into this current situation of seeming
leadership paralysis and confusion?
JA KUFUOR AND THE IVORIAN CRISIS
It would be recalled that on Thursday,
September 19, 2002, the political situation
had worsened in Cote d’Ivoire when rebels
engineered a military upheaval. Two days
later, on his return from a UN General
Assembly session, President J A Kufuor said
Ghana “would remain firmly behind the
legitimate government” of Cote d’Ivoire,
that is the goal of President Gbagbo who had
won the presidential election of 2000 for a
five year term. “We will do whatever it is
within our powers to support the tenets of
democracy and the rule of law in the sister
country,” he stressed. The next day,
President Kufuor sent a top-level team, led
by Ghana’s foreign minister, Hackman
Owusu-Agyemang on a peace mission to Abidjan
and, with that, began the processes which
prevented Cote d’Ivoire from plunging into a
full-scale civil war.
A week later, African leaders, including
Presidents Mbeki, Wade and Compaore, met in
Ghana for a crisis summit on the rebellion
in Cote d’Ivoire. Africa, with Ghana in the
lead, was in that crisis, offering
unequivocal leadership to resolving a crisis
next door. But, even then, ladies and
gentlemen, there were clear signs that
neither the Gbagbo government nor rebels
would welcome intervention by a regional
military force when Ecowas was absolutely
clear in its collective mind that military
intervention should not be ruled out.
President Laurent Gbagbo made it clear in
2002 that he wanted diplomatic support and
arms, not foreign troops from Ecowas. The
situation was such that a 15-day blitz
campaign managed to split the country into
two equal and separate territories, with the
northern part from the city of Bouake upward
under rebels' control and the southern part,
downward from the city of Bouake under
government's control.
Indeed, On Sunday, 29 September, 2002, a
commander of the rebels said they would
regard foreign intervention as an attempt to
deprive them of victory. "If Ecomog comes
here there won't be peace for 20, 30, 40
years. There must be justice," Tuo Fozie
said in a Reuters report filed by Kwaku
Sakyi-Addo and John Chiahemen. Yet, the
Ecowas leadership persevered, with support
from the wider international community.
The then Ecowas Executive Secretary,
Mohammed ibn Chambas, told reporters at the
Kotoka International Airport that Ecowas had
asked member states to put units in their
armed forces on stand-by for possible
intervention. However, he stressed a
peaceful resolution was "the preferred
option". This was what led to a strong
contingent of Ecowas forces forming a buffer
zone between the north and south, which, in
effect, created the conducive atmosphere for
the series of accords, many of which our
current flagbearer was instrumental,
(including Accra II, Accra III, and the
International Working Group which Nana Addo
co-chaired), paving the way for last year’s
elections.
Dr Chambas made a most instructive statement
then. He said Cote d’Ivoire was a test of
Africa's resolve to break with a past of
bloody military coups. “We are determined to
put the history of coups behind us. No
government which comes to power through a
coup will be recognised.”
Nearly seven years later, we are faced with
another history, which Africa must put
behind her: the phenomenon of leaders losing
elections and choosing to hold on to power.
Why it is particularly very significant for
Africans to use this Ivorian situation to
make a clean break with the past is that in
2011 alone a total of 26 countries are
scheduled to hold elections and 19 of them
may lead to a change in the national
leadership of the respective countries. How
Africa deals with the Ivorian situation may
have far-reaching implications on the
democratic path which Africa has embarked
on. Gbagbo cannot be allowed to get away
with this impunity. It would be too costly.
According to the Independent Electoral
Commission, Mr Ouattara won the 28 November
run-off election with 2,483,164,
representing 54.1%. Thus Mr Gbagbo lost the
election by over 8 percentage points, with
2,107,055 votes (45.9%).
Summary of the 31 October and 28 November
2010 Ivorian presidential election results:
Laurent Gbagbo
Ivorian People's Front
1,756,504 38.04 2,054,537 (CC) 2,107,055 (IEC)
51.45 (CC) 45.9 (IEC)
Alassane Ouattara
Rally of the Republicans
1,481,091 32.07 1,938,672 (CC) 2,483,164 (IEC)
48.55 (CC) 54.1 (IEC)
Henri Konan Bédié
Democratic Party of Côte d'Ivoire – African
Democratic Rally
1,165,532 25.24
But, Mr Gbagbo, who disputed the results,
went against the agreed processes of results
declaration and got the Constitutional
Council to nullify over 600,000 votes to
force the results his way by less than two
percentage points.
COMPARING GHANA’S 0.46% VICTORY MARGIN
Ladies and gentlemen, it would be recalled
that not so long ago, we faced quite a
similar situation in Ghana, where the two
parties in the runoff raised issues about a
contest that was determined by some 40,000
votes (0.46%) of the total votes cast.
However, once the Electoral Commission
declared the president-elect in Ghana, the
ruling party at the time and its candidate
accepted the results and congratulated the
winner.
It is the significance of this gesture to
the future of Africa’s democracy that
encouraged President Barrack Obama to visit
our country in July 2009. He did so to
encourage us further on this journey and for
our neighbours to emulate our example. This,
in fact, puts Ghana, especially, the person
who most benefited from Ghana’s smooth
transition in 2008, President JEA Mills, in
a special position to lead any robust effort
on the part of the international community
to get Mr Gbagbo, who lost the November 28
race by some 8% margin, to exit and let the
man who has been chosen by a clear majority
of the Ivorian people take over. It should
be noted that Cote d’Ivoire has a total
voter list of 5.7 million, about half of
Ghana’s voter population and, yet, the
incumbent President disputed an election
which he lost by nearly 400,000 votes.
Sadly, our President has adopted a very
strange position or positions, putting great
doubts on his principled commitment to
multiparty democracy and, in the process,
hurting Ghana’s pacesetter role in charting
the democratic path for our continent.
Rather than protecting Ghanaian lives from
needless deaths, it is our fear that our
President’s vague isolationist stance is
what is endangering Ghanaian lives.
Ladies and gentlemen, today, Cote d’Ivoire
has gone back to a situation in many ways
similar to what we became familiar with
seven years ago and, Ghana, under the able
leadership of President J a Kufuor, played a
pro-active leadership role in resolving it.
That situation came to be known as ‘a state
of no war, no peace and no government.’ That
state of no war, no peace and no government
has returned, unfortunately, and, like the
fear then, Ghana’s western neighbour may be
drifting once again towards an eventual
showdown between across religious and ethnic
lines, economic disaster and bloodshed, if a
solution is not found quickly.
Crucial to finding that solution is a
collective resolve on the part of the
international community, particular in the
West African region, on the best approach.
But, this time, under the leadership of
President Mills, Ghana has taken an
unassailable lead in an uncompetitive race
to undermine the overwhelming international
consensus. It is, of course, telling that Mr
Gbagbo is the only person who has come out
to laud our President as taking a “common
sense position.”
In less than two weeks, Ghana’s position on
Cote d’Ivoire has been so ambivalent and
confusing that it had to take the Prime
Minister of Kenya, Mr Raila Odinga, to come
all the way here to clarify for us, and,
hopefully, for the benefit of the rest of
the world, what the position of our
President is purported to be on Cote
d’Ivoire. Except, even this position may be
subject to the usual changes.
WHAT REALLY IS GHANA’S POSITION?
So what really is the position of Ghana?
And, why has Ghana’s position(s) generated
so much controversy?
Ghana’s position has become an issue because
our President has not been straight forward
on this very critical issue of regional
security. The President, his government
officials and party members have treated
this Ivorian crisis like a small political
quarrel between factions in a constituency
contest. Their support for Mr Gbagbo and the
use of certain newspapers and commentators
to push the pro-Gbagbo agenda are what feed
the growing perception that our President is
more interested in pushing a personal or
partisan interest than the national
interest.
MUMUNI SUPPORTED MILITARY ACTION ON DECEMBER
9
Ladies and gentlemen, the Tuesday, December
7 communiqué of Ecowas, which recognised
Ouattara’s victory, did not call for
military intervention. Yet, in an interview
with Accra’s Citi FM two days later, on
Thursday, December 9, Ghana's Foreign
Affairs Minister, Mohammed Mumuni made a
categorical statement that Ecowas would have
no option than to resort to brute force to
remove Laurent Gbagbo from office, if
diplomatic efforts failed. Mr Mumuni said,
ECOWAS was capable of taking military
action. Thus, Ghana was the first country to
have publicly entertained the military
option, at least publicly. We ask, could
this position of Ghana’s Foreign Minister on
December 9 have been lost on the other
Ecowas members? Was he expressing Ghana’s
view at the time or his own personal view?
A week later, Mr Gbagbo was still refusing
to quit, Ghana’s President would not go
further than to call on Friday 17 December
for a weekend of prayers for Cote d’Ivoire.
It was this which prompted the NPP
flagbearer’s press statement of Monday, 20
December.
THE NPP POSITION
Please permit me to read portions of Nana
Addo’s statement. “The nation has noted with
approval the call by His Excellency the
President, Prof J. E. A. Mills, for
Ghanaians to pray for peace in La Cote
D’Ivoire. Much as most of us Ghanaians
believe in the efficacy of prayer, prayer
cannot be a replacement of or substitute for
an active policy of Ghanaian diplomacy and
engagement. Conflict and instability in La
Cote D’Ivoire pose a threat not only to the
peace and stability of West Africa, but also
to Ghana’s national security. Ghana shares a
700km border with La Cote D’Ivoire and our
nation is an obvious haven for refugees from
La Cote D’Ivoire... These are some of the
reasons why Ghana cannot afford to stand by
and watch helplessly as La Cote D’Ivoire is
plunged into another cycle of bloodshed,
conflict and division.”
Nana Addo added, “His Excellency the
President’s good relations with former
President Laurent Gbagbo are well known. The
President is respectfully urged to use his
good offices to intervene with former
President Gbagbo to ensure that the will of
the Ivorian people is respected and that the
position of the international community, as
expressed by the position of ECOWAS at a
meeting at which His Excellency the
President was present, the Africa Union, and
the United Nations Security Council, is
respected. Everything should be done to
avoid the spectre of La Cote D’Ivoire
descending into the status of a rogue state
whose leaders act in defiance of domestic
and international law. Bloodshed and chaos
should not be the price for an individual
seeking to remain in office at all cost.”
Let me repeat, “Bloodshed and chaos should
not be the price for an individual seeking
to remain in office at all cost.” Yet, it
has been said by NDC propagandists that the
NPP are warmongers, calling for our boys in
green to be sent to the slaughter for a
‘needless war.’ The NPP position is not what
is controversial. What is controversial is
the oscillating diplomacy being artlessly
exhibited by the Mills-Mahama
administration. The NPP position is
consistent with the Ecowas position, which
the Ghana government is a signatory to, and
consistent with the AU and UN position. We
believe Gbagbo’s removal is non-negotiable.
What is negotiable is how that should be
achieved.
The presidency has gone as far as to ask
whether Nana Addo, as President, would
commit troops in support of a military
intervention in Cote d’Ivoire. Now, first of
all, is the ruling party telling Ghanaians
that it is waiting on the leader of the
opposition to give leadership on Ghana’s
position on this Ivorian issue? We can
appreciate their recognition of Nana Addo’s
exemplary leadership role as Ghana’s Foreign
Minister under the NPP, however, that is no
excuse for the NDC to neglect their
constitutional obligation to offer clear,
considered, firm and decisive national
leadership which is in the national
interest.
HAVE WE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE TROOPS?
It is not for the opposition leader to give
speculative answers to hypothetical
questions. The NDC has, in their usual
occupation of diverting focus from
substantive issues on the ground to
manufactured issues of propaganda value and
convenience, reduced the whole debate about
Ghana’s position on Cote d’Ivoire to one of
sending Ghanaian troops to fight a war next
door.
We would wish for the President to tell
Ghanaians: has Ecowas asked Ghana to provide
troops to remove Gbagbo by force? How many
troops have we been asked to provide? When
are we supposed to provide the troops?
Again, why is the NDC desperately making it
seem as supporting a military option
necessarily means providing troops? Can
Ghana be forced to provide troops if we are
not in a position to do so?
All that the NPP has been asking for is for
the President to show clear and decisive
leadership and not let his personal
relations get in the way of the national
interest and our international obligations.
An anxious Ghanaian nation awaits the
leadership of its President. Our message has
always been that former President J. A.
Kufuor got involved in the resolution of the
Ivorian crisis at its very beginning and
helped broker the peace that prevented Cote
d’Ivoire descending into full scale civil
war. President Mills should get equally
involved so that former President Gbagbo
exits peacefully from power to spare Cote
d’Ivoire another bout of conflict and
confusion. The Ivorian people deserve better
and Ghana can help in this viable venture to
build a better Cote d’Ivoire rather than
sending conflicting signals that only serve
as oxygen to Gbagbo’s quasi-coup regime.
ECOWAS COMMUNIQUE ON LEGITIMATE FORCE
Indeed, as recalled, it was rather President
Mills’ own number one diplomat, Alhaji
Mumuni, who first suggested a military
intervention to remove Gbagbo. Paragraph
nine (9) of the 24 December Ecowas
communiqué reads, “The Heads of State and
Government regret the fact that the message
sent by the ECOWAS Chairman on behalf of the
Authority on 17 December 2010 has not been
heeded by Mr. Gbagbo. In this season of
peace, the Summit decided to make an
ultimate gesture to Mr. Gbagbo by urging him
to make a peaceful exit. In this regard, the
Authority decided to dispatch a special
high-level delegation to Côte d’Ivoire.”
The subsequent paragraph reads: “In the
event that Mr. Gbagbo fails to heed this
immutable demand of ECOWAS, the Community
would be left with no alternative but to
take other measures, including the use of
legitimate force, to achieve the goals of
the Ivorian people.”
Shortly after this communiqué, Ecowas made
clear its intention to continue pursuing a
diplomatic settlement, while leaving the
military intervention as a final option, by
forming a five-member joint AU- ECOWAS
mission, led by Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila
Odinga.
It was looking positive that the threat of
military action was helping, when Mr Gbagbo
on Tuesday, January 4, told the Odinga-led
team that he was in favour of negotiating a
peaceful end to the crisis in that country
without any pre-condition and had agreed to
lift the blockade around Hotel Du Gold, the
temporary headquarters of Alassane Ouattara,
the president- elect.
The President of the ECOWAS Commission,
Victor Gbeho, on that day made it clear in
Abuja what Ecowas had in mind per the
December 24 communiqué. He said, “ECOWAS and
AU is now saying even if there is half per
cent chance of resolving the issue
peacefully, we will explore it.” He went on,
“We are aware of the danger of using
military force but if necessary, when we get
to that bridge, we will cross it.”
DZI WO FIE ASEM
But, three days later, at a press conference
at the Castle, Accra, President Mills chose
to throw a very unhelpful lifeline to
Gbagbo’s illegitimate hold on power. He
said, without provocation, "It is not for
Ghana to choose a leader for Cote d'Ivoire.
As a person I don’t think this military
option is going to bring peace to the
nation. I don’t want to be saddled with a
problem we can’t settle.” He went on to say
that we should mind our own business as
Ghanaians and, in other words, leave our
neighbours to burn. In his own words, ‘dzi
wo fie asem.’ Ladies and gentlemen, these
were the words of the Asomdwehene. This is
the thinking of so-called disciple of the
avowed Pan-Africanist, Kwame Nkrumah.
We are happy that none of his last two
predecessors, former President J. J Rawlings
and J. A. Kufuor, decided to mind their own
business when trouble brewed in Liberia,
Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire, among other
places. They chose to continue with Ghana
wonderful tradition as a peace-maker and
peace-keeper.
The issue, ladies and gentlemen, is not
about sending Ghanaian troops to a foreign
land to be slaughtered and brought back in
body bags as the Government would want
Ghanaians to believe. The fundamental issue
is the inexcusable decision by the President
of the Republic to make a voluntary public
statement which has undermined the
collective decision of ECOWAS on the
question of ruling in the option of
legitimate force to get the legitimate will
of the majority of the Ivorian people
respected by former President Laurent Gbagbo.
We are not prepared to debate Ghana’s
Commander-in-Chief over his position that
Ghana’s military, which recently saw the
return home of more than 500 troops from the
UN mission in Chad, “is already over
stretched.” But, we have every reason to
doubt the President’s sincerity in this
matter.
This is because it is simply not on for a
President to sign up to a decision only to
come out to denounce that very decision a
few days later. It devalues the high office
of the presidency and creates problems for
the enforcement of that same decision by
those who are committed to it. Moreover, the
President, after saying that Ghana’s
military was overstretched, went on to speak
against the very option of military
intervention.
For Ghana, a key actor in the regional body,
to break ranks, strikes at the very heart of
the necessary processes to tighten the bolts
and nuts of integration, including peace,
security and democracy. President Mills’
position is a throw back to the erstwhile
OAU, which earned the nickname Despots Club.
So low has Ghana’s standing fallen under
President Mills on this issue that our Chief
of Defence Staff is not even trusted to
attend meetings of regional military chiefs.
The question is this: why did President
Mills do that? Was it to send a message of
hope to Gbagbo and one of despair to the
people of Cote d’Ivoire?
Nobody is praying for a war in Cote
d’Ivoire. Indeed, before the New Year,
Patrick Achi, Ouattara’s spokesman said, "We
are pursuing the diplomatic path where
possible… But it seems that former President
Gbagbo doesn't want to listen to the world -
so the possibility of using force, as
suggested by West African countries, is also
on the table.”
On Sunday, January 17, President Goodluck
Jonathan, was compelled to stress, during
his meeting with Prime Minister Odinga that
Ecowas always said the use of force would
depend on the outcome of a series of
meetings to be held with stakeholders on
Cote d’Ivoire.
Also this week, the Chairperson of the Mano
River Union of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra
Leone had to come out and say the group was
in full adherence with the Ecowas
communiqué. Mrs Ellen Johnson Sirleaf said,
although military intervention remained an
option, a peaceful settlement to the
political crisis was still being sought.
President Mills caused the damage and
retreated to the Castle for his colleague
Heads of State to clear the mess.
Mr Gbagbo’s uncompromising stance leaves
Ecowas with very little options now. In this
same week, after the meeting of regional
military heads in Mali, Air Chief Marshall
Oluseyi Petinrin of Nigeria, the president
of the ECOWAS Committee of Chiefs of Defense
Staff, told reporters “Virtually every
member of ECOWAS has agreed to contribute
troops. Military preparations are already
well under way.” Although the Chief Marshall
failed to give further details, the military
chiefs are expected to travel by special
flight to Bouaké, a city in northern Ivory
Coast controlled by Ouattara to conduct a
scouting mission.
We wish to know from our President whether
or not Ghana was part of this agreement.
Let us make no mistake, it is the presence
of UN forces and the threat of military
repercussions that have so far prevented
forces loyal to Gbagbo from attacking
Ouattara’s claim to the presidency.
MEDIA PROPAGANDA FOR GBAGBO
Just yesterday, the UN Security Council
agreed to add 2,000 more troops to the
10,000-strong contingent in Cote d’Ivoire.
In its communiqué yesterday, the UN Security
Council welcomed continued efforts at
mediation but expressed concern about
ongoing violence and human rights
violations, and in particular the role of
the media. "The members of the Security
Council strongly condemned and demanded an
immediate halt to the use of media ... to
propagate false information, to incite
hatred and violence, including against the
UN," the council's statement said. We want
to send a message to Gbagbo and his friends
that no amount of propaganda can undo the
expressed wishes of the majority of the
Ivorian people.
The UN says it has clear evidence that Mr
Gbagbo is behind attacks against its
peacekeeping force. Of the 800 peacekeepers
guarding the Golf Hotel in which the
internationally recognized president of Cote
d’Ivoire has sought refuge, we are told by
President Mills that, Ghanaian troops are
included. There is no question that their
lives are in danger but they are, as Ghana
should rightly be, committed to the greater
good of restoring peace and democracy to our
next door.
It is our contention that the isolationist
position that is apparently adopted by
President Mills is what rather endangers,
not only Ghanaians soldiers, but the
estimated 1.5 million Ghanaians who have
made Cote d’Ivoire their home. Millions of
people in la Cote d’Ivoire are looking up to
us and the other ECOWAS states to act
together to bring a peaceful end to the
crisis. The Ivorians are not asking
Ghanaians to choose their leader for them.
They did that on November 28. They are only
asking us to help them put into office the
leader that they themselves have
democratically chosen, a choice that the
international community has wholeheartedly
welcomed.
Let us be bold and responsible in showing
that we are fully behind the democratic
choice of the people of Cote d’Ivoire. Let
us support the spirit and letter of the AU,
which is based on the principle that we are
each other’s keeper.
Ghana cannot mind its own business. We
believe, as the good Christian that our
President professes to be, he should be very
familiar with Genesis 4:9: “And the LORD
said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?
And Cain said, I know not: am I my brother's
keeper?” That is not the way to go.
We risk returning to the situation in recent
years where the Ivorian state will no longer
control the entire territory, with hundreds
of thousands of people displaced, many
fleeing to neighbouring countries, including
Ghana.
Thank you.
|
