Opinion  | by Adam Teiichi Yoshida

RAMADJI.com ,

Confronting French Unilateralism

by Adam Teiichi Yoshida

Those not paying attention to the present happenings in the Ivory Coast are, to say the least, a large majority. This does not mean, however, that these events are insignificant or undeserving of our attention.

In truth, the ongoing violence in the Ivory Coast offers the United States an excellent chance to fight against the Islamic takeover of an old friend of the West, a chance to punish France for its consistent meddling in the affairs of its former colonies, and a chance to make the French realize the full cost of standing alongside the enemies of the Untied States.

Let’s briefly review the history of the Ivory Coast. A French colony up until 1960, it has traditionally been Western-aligned and relatively free. In recent years, however, the nation has faced increasing chaos. In 1999 the democratically-elected government was overthrown in a coup which ended a year later after a popular revolt following rigged election installed Laurent Gbagbo as the nation’s President.

In 2002 a rebellion began, centered in the largely-Islamic northern portion of the country. This rebellion is supported by the predominantly Moslem nation of Burkina Faso. One of the factors most commonly cited as a cause of this rebellion is the decision of the government of the Ivory Coast to impose laws requiring that both parents of a Presidential candidate be born within the country. This law is considered particularly offensive by the Moslems within the north because they (or at least their parents) tend to originate from other nations.

Late in 2002 the French became deeply involved in the settling of the crisis. They imposed a “peace agreement” upon President Gbagbo which forced him into a “power sharing” agreement with the rebels and left them in control of a large portion of the country. Their intervention (and the subsequent involvement of the UN) was objectively in favor of the rebels for the simple reason that, in the face of any rebellion, using outside force in order to force a settlement is an action which legitimizes such a movement.

Given that the actual population of the Ivory Coast, if you include foreigners living within the borders of the country, is majority-Islamic, it seems natural to assume that, if the rebels eventually get their way and President Gbagbo is removed and nationality laws are modified that the Ivory Coast will be drowned by the forward-rushing Islamic tide.

Virtually all stories I’ve seen have played down (or failed entirely to mention) the role of Islam in this or the obvious fact that France’s real aim in the Ivory Coast is not to simply maintain a peace agreement, but rather to install an (Islamic) government which suits its own needs.

It’s essential that we face the fact that, even if Islam itself is not an enemy of Western Civilization (a proposition which I do entirely endorse), that the advance of Islam and the installation of pro-Islamic governments anywhere upon the Earth is not in the interests of the United States or, for that matter, that of all free and moral men.

President Gbagbo and the present government of the Ivory Coast deserve our support both because they are the legitimately elected government of that country, but also because they stand against our enemies. If an Islamic government, even a relatively benign one, is installed in the Ivory Coast there can be little doubt that it will quickly become a haven for terrorists and other Islamists.

So: what is to be done? Obviously it would be less than desirable to send US troops to fight the rebels (and possibly the French). Leaving aside the political difficulties of such a move, it isn’t really necessary.

President Gbagbo needs two things to defeat the rebellion: money and weapons. A few hundred million dollars can go a long way in Africa. Such aid could even be disguised as “humanitarian aid” upon which a not-very-vigilant watch is kept.

The second thing is a little more difficult. To begin, there’s a UN Security Council resolution banning the shipment of weapons to belligerents in the Ivory Coast. While it is true that UN Security Resolutions have about as much practical effect as the resolutions of the Oxford Union, it does mean that we probably shouldn’t ship those weapons overtly.

Instead, I propose, the US Government should undertake a covert operation to transfer a few thousand tons of captured Iraqi weapons to the government of the Ivory Coast with the assistance of a number of third parties. In addition to the weapons which will be necessary for the defeat of the rebels, such shipments should also include SA-7 or SA-14 shoulder-fired missiles for use by the government in case the French get any more ideas about deciding to use their Air Force inappropriately. A few crates of anti-tank missiles, should the French army stand in the way of any offensive to crush the rebels, might be a good idea as well.

Finally, if increased violence forces the UN mission out of the country, the US might consider lending air support to an offensive designed to crush the northern rebels. The very sight of a Navy F/A-18 might be enough to send a lot of the people fighting on the rebel side into retreat.

There is, of course, one large risk inherent in this proposed strategy: we might end by inadvertently in confrontation with France that could compel their surrender and leave us with the challenge of managing the EU.