One if my readers posted this to me:
“Ok, I’m confused about your statement of no UN mandate. As an article in the Times states “That action, (the bombing of the air force) taken with the full support of the UN Security Council” would seem to me that the UN had supported the French. Also the French and UN have had peacekeeping forces in Côte d'Ivoire for quite a while since the last civil war. At present there are about 6,000 U.N. troops in the Ivory cost and 4,000 French. And the French were only replying to a bombing of one of there buildings. Keep in mind there were also American aid workers killed or injured in the attack on the building. So the French retaliated by destroying the Côte d'Ivoire’s air force but not killing anyone because they had people killed and was probably deliberately attacked. Considering that by reports the planes circled overhead three times before attacking. Seems to me kind of hard to argue with the French position for the way they carried out there retaliation. As to weather or not the French should be there, well that could be traced back to their colonial days.”
Okay, fair enough. I made some statements, now I need to clarify what I said with a few facts. He has his points, but a little research shows something a little different at least how I see it. I will address this a little at a time. I did not include his name as I did not ask him if it was okay first. My choice, but the email is presented in its entirety, minus the name.
“Ok, I’m confused about your statement of no UN mandate. As an article in the Times states “That action, (the bombing of the air force) taken with the full support of the UN Security Council” would seem to me that the UN had supported the French.”
The UN mission to Côte d'Ivoire is separate from the French troops there. I will post my resources here so if they seem abrupt, that is their wording, not mine J
“As stipulated by resolution 1528, the mandate of UNOCI, which was to be implemented in coordination with the French forces stationed in Côte d’Ivoire, shall be the following:…” (1)
Okay, so the UN forces are to work in coordination with the French forces there. The French are not part of the UN mission; therefore they are troops from an outside government and do not enjoy the protections given UN Blue Helmets. They can be considered viable legal combatants.
“Also the French and UN have had peacekeeping forces in Côte d'Ivoire for quite a while since the last civil war. At present there are about 6,000 U.N. troops in the Ivory cost and 4,000 French.”
I don’t argue this at all. Here are some more statistics:
Total authorized strength
”6,240 military personnel, including 200 military observers; as well as 350 civilian police officers, some 435 international civilians and 529 local civilians, and 119 United Nations Volunteers.
Strength as of 30 September 2004
6,221 total uniformed personnel, including 5,843 troops, 166 military observers; 212 civilian police supported by 220 international civilian personnel and 156 local staff “(2)
Now here is where things get a little muddy.:
“Contributors of Military Personnel:
Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Togo, Tunisia, Uruguay, Yemen and Zambia
Contributors of civilian police personnel:
Bangladesh, Benin, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Djibouti, El Salvador, France, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Turkey and Uruguay”(2)
Now why does the UN list that they are working in concert with French troops, but list them separately from any others in the resolution? The only thing I can figure out is that there are both French peacekeepers and French regular troops deployed in the same area. Wouldn’t you say this is a problem waiting to happen? Which ones are UN and which ones are not? I would say it is a little hard to tell from an aircraft moving at 250mph plus. High-speed ants still look like ants even if they do have blue helmets.”
“And the French were only replying to a bombing of one of there buildings. Keep in mind there were also American aid workers killed or injured in the attack on the building. So the French retaliated by destroying the Côte d'Ivoire’s air force but not killing anyone because they had people killed and was probably deliberately attacked.”
Okay, time for a little more clarification. The area they are occupying is in the sovereign territory of Côte d’Ivoire, not France. The buildings they are using are not property of France, but of the lawful government of Côte d’Ivoire and its people. That aside, I feel that their retributive strike against the legitimate government of Côte d’Ivoire was uncalled for and beyond reason. Some would say that it could be construed as an act of aggression. As for deliberately attacked, who knows, but they did not even ask, they just struck back. The US and other nations have accidentally hit “friendlies” during engagements. This is called “The Fog Of War” when targets are misidentified.
“On 6 November 2004, air strikes in Bouaké left nine French soldiers and an American civilian dead, plus 30 more French soldiers injured.”(6). 10 people killed, 30 injured. I would like to say that I do feel sad for the soldiers and the aid worker and their families. There were there to do a very difficult job and paid the ultimate price for doing what they thought was right.
“Considering that by reports the planes circled overhead three times before attacking. Seems to me kind of hard to argue with the French position for the way they carried out there retaliation.”
The fact that the jet made 3 passes would seem to indicate the pilot tried to identify the troops involved. He may have questioned the target, but after the third pass had to error on the side of the attack. Who knows? We are all guessing, only the pilot knows for sure. Although I do have a question about this; why did the French, who some would say have a modern army, not try to radio the aircraft and warn him off? Why did they not throw smoke to show they were friendlies? An even simpler question is why did they not get out of there if they saw this attack craft buzzing them? Why when the aircraft took an attack attitude did they not cut and run? One answer jumps to mind: Engaged combatants do not retreat during a potential air strike. Hell, if they would have just waved to him he may not of attacked.
“ As to weather or not the French should be there, well that could be traced back to their colonial days”
Amen. I would recommend reading http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/citoc.html just to get an idea of how much influence France has in Ivory Coast. I would say colony in all but name.
If in fact the French ground troops are operating as an authorized extension of the UN Peacekeepers then I think the following applies:
“While affirming the Blue Helmets’ right to defend themselves and those they are mandated to protect, the Secretary-General has stressed that this new “doctrine” should not be interpreted as a means of turning the UN into a warfighting machine, and that the use of force should always be seen as a measure of last resort.” (3)
Um, they hit the air force within a very short period of time, like an hour or so. So much for measures of last resort.
Here are some interesting tidbits:
“On Saturday, government aircraft bombed a French position near Bouake, killing nine French soldiers and an American aid worker. The Ivorian government said the bombing was an accident.” (4) Oh, like the French never had an accident. I would direct my readers to footnote number 5. Not once, ever has any “allied force” taken retribution against the accidentally offending party. Sorry, France, that dog does not hunt. They call it Amicicde. Heck, even the French know the word Ami; it is French! It means friend you dolts!
And on that thread:
Would you agree that the destruction of a countries air force, however small, would be an unstabilising factor both politically and economically? I would, and apparently so does the French minister of foreign affairs:
“In a communiqué released on 7 November, Michel Barnier, France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, focused his attention on the fact that “the mission of French forces is above all to increase the security of our citizens. (...) That is their mission: to increase security - nothing more. To increase security, not to destabilize.”” (6)
I’ll take bets that when this is all over, France will kindly offer to sell them a few Mirage fighters to replace the Russian-made Sukhoi jet fighters they destroyed.
Okay, I could ramble on even more. While I do like the input from my readers, sometimes I just must respond publicly. I hope this did not come off as adversarial as that was not my intent. I just wanted to present some of the facts that led me to my statements and conclusions. I know some of this is just supposition and conjecture, but when we do not have all the information that is all we can hope for.
I did try to find an offical government website for Ivory Coast, but none exists. I will edit out the snide anti-French comment I was going to post here as it takes away from everything else.
References:
(1) http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unoci/mandate.html
(2) http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unoci/facts.html
(3) http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q9.htm
(4) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/11/ivory.evacuation/index.html
(5) http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Shrader/shrader.asp
(6) http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/information/latest_news_97/cote_ivoire_taking_stock_51531.html
No comments:
Post a Comment