Following his ‘dzi wo fie asem’ utterance during his interaction with the media
earlier this year, President J.E.A Mills continues to come under intense criticism
(some constructive; others irrational) home and abroad.
Several individuals and organisations have been aggressive in their assertions that
President Mills is a selfish and uncaring man, who is indifferent to happenings in
his backyard-Cote d’Ivoire.
It’s extremely important that ‘di wo fie asem’ is analysed within the context of
prevailing circumstances:Preceding the President’s ‘dzi wo fie asem’ comment were
statements that indicated that his agreement with ECOWAS on the following
issues:Outarra won the Ivorian Presidential election in November 2010.Gbagbo ought
to step down as President of Cote d’Ivoire.All peaceful diplomatic efforts must be
pursued to get Gbagbo to hand over power.The inference of Presidents Mills’ ‘dzi wo
fie asem’ utterance vis-à-vis the Ivorian situation, is that it will be extremely
foolish for Ghana to commit troops to military intervention in Cote d’Ivoire,
when:Ghana has serious social and economic problems of her own.A war in Cote
d’Ivoire will set back Ghana’s economic gains.A war in Cote d'Ivoire will lead to a
further destabilisation of the country.In the opinion of this writer, the situation
in Cote d’Ivoire is not as bad as is being
portrayed. ‘Misunderstanding’ or ‘dispute’ rather than ‘crisis’ best describes the
happening in that country.The misunderstanding between Gbagbo and Outarra, I dare
say, is trivial and can be resolved peacefully without any military intervention
whatsoever.
This probably explains why President Mills was so blunt in his affirmation that
‘military operation will not bring peace to Cote d’Ivoire’ and that Ghana will not
contribute troops to any such venture.
One country that is aggressively advocating the option of military intervention in
Cote d’Ivoire is Nigeria.According to the Daily Graphic of 25th January, 2010,
Nigerian Foreign Minister, Odein Ajumogobia, has called on the United Nations
Security Council UNSC) to authorise force in Cote d’Ivoire.Ajumogobia indicated that
‘the deadly crisis single-handedly precipitated by Mr Laurent Gbagbo will inevitably
lead to anarchy and chaos, or worse, a full blown civil war.’He went on to add that
‘the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) requires unequivocal
international support through an appropriate United Nations Security Council
Resolution to sanction the use of force.’‘This is the only way to legitimise the use
of external force to effectively contain the increasingly volatile internal
situation and would ensure an enduring peace in Cote d’Ivoire and the West African
Sub-region’, he said.Ajumogobia concluded that the peace
keeping mandate of the United Nations Operation Cote d’Ivoire (UNOCI), ‘has now
however become inadequate to guarantee peace and security in the country’ and that
‘it’s time to look at the prospect of legitimate force.’
In the opinion of this writer, it is utterly unfortunate that Nigeria is
aggressively advocating the use of military force in Cote d’Ivoire.
This is a country that has been plagued by huge internal problems including
militancy and sectarianism, which continue to lead to the loss of hundreds of
Nigerian lives and damages to infrastructure and property to the tune of millions of
dollars.This writer is tempted to believe that President Mills’ ‘dzi wo fie asem’
(mind your own business) utterance was directed at Nigeria.It has to be said that
the situation in Nigeria is more deserving of a military intervention than the
happening in Cote d’Ivoire.The happenings in the Niger-Delta area of Nigeria, where
militants relentlessly engage in killings, kidnappings and destruction of
infrastructure, especially oil installations, and the happenings in Jos and Maduguri
where fighting between Christian and Muslim gangs, continue to lead to the deaths of
hundreds of people, are certainly worse and deserving of more attention that the
happening in Cote d’Ivoire.What about sporadic incidences of
bombings in some Nigerian cities ( The 2010 Independence Day bombings in Abuja
easily come to mind)? Does it not form part of issues that should engage the
undivided attention of the Nigerian government?
I dare say, that it will be better for Nigeria to end the unnecessary ‘bravadoism’
and ‘machoism’ with regard to the Ivorian situation and concentrate on solving its
own internal problems.The moneys being prepared for a war in Cote d’Ivoire should be
expended on reducing poverty and improving electricity generation in that country.
The troops Nigeria is preparing a war in Cote d’Ivoire should be deployed to Jos,
Maiduguri and the Niger-Delta, so that law and order can be maintained in those
places. This, needless to say, is the reasonable thing to do.
The position of Ghana on the Cote d’Ivoire misunderstanding has been consistent and
clear: we oppose any sort military intervention in Cote d’Ivoire as has been
unequivocally and bluntly affirmed by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces, Prof. J.E.A Mills.The President’s position on Cote d’Ivoire, needless
to say, is entirely in line with the position of Ghanaians who are not oblivious of
the disastrous repercussions of a war in Cote d’Ivoire.Unlike Nigeria, not only
Ghana does have serious economic interests in Cote d’Ivoire, the country also shares
a border with that country. There is also an estimated one million Ghanaians living
in that country and military intervention in Cote d’Ivoire will cause Ghana several
problems including an unprecedented refugee situation.
This writer envisages about two million Ivorians flooding into Ghana in the event of
a war in Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana, already bedevilled with huge problems of poverty,
unemployment, infrastructural backwardness and food insufficiency, will be incapable
of feeding and housing them.It would be extremely unwise on our parts as Ghanaians,
to invest millions of dollars in an unnecessary military expedition in Cote d’Ivoire
when we are faced with more serious problems as a nation.
It ought to be recognised, that Ghana’s decision not to contribute troops to
military intervention in Cote d’Ivoire is in the best interest of both Ghana and
Cote d’Ivoire. And we must continue to rigorously oppose the use of military force
in that country.
This writer finds it extremely difficult to see the wisdom in risking the lives of
ECOMOG troops just to unseat Laurent Gbagbo as President and replace him with
Ouattara? Where in this world has this ever happened? Where in this world has
military intervention been used to resolve electoral disputes? It is an
unprecedented event and West Africa shouldn’t be first to set such a negative,
barbaric and regressive precedence.
In the words of President Mills ‘it is not for Ghana to decide who becomes President
in Cote d’Ivoire’; this is the wisest saying I have heard in relation to the Ivorian
situation and other West African countries must take a cue from it.In our analyses
of the Ivorian situation, we mustn’t fail to take cognisance of the following:Gbabgo
is the legitimate President of Cote d’Ivoire as per the Ivorian constitution which
stipulates that only the Ivorian Constitutional Council has the power to certify
election results and declare a winner.Gbagbo has the unflinching support of the
Ivorian ArmyGbagbo has the support of many Ivorians ( this explains why Ivorians
have not taken to the streets to demand his removal as has been done in Tunisia and
is being done in Egypt).
It’s important, in view of the foregoing, that attempts to get Gbabgo to hand over
power to Ouattara be done with a significant level of respect.Military intervention
ought to be ruled out completely because it will only worsen the already volatile
situation in that country as well as the plight of the Ivorian people.Rather than
sacrifice the lives of ECOWAS soldiers and Ivorian civilians just to make Outarra
President of Cote d’Ivoire, we should continue to explore all diplomatic means to
restore understanding between the incumbent Gbagbo and Ouattara.
Even if Gbagbo refuses to set aside for Ouattara, despite the sanctions that have
been placed on Cote d’Ivoire, a number of other options such as a recount of the
election votes, a re-run of the election and even power sharing could still be
explored. The preceding options, needless to say, are better for Cote d’Ivoire than
a military intervention that could lead to the death of tens of thousands of people
and the displacement of millions.

Samuel K. Obour

samuelkwason@yahoo.com