Ivory Coast: UN forces fire on pro-Gbagbo camp

I've done lot of UN bashing over selective intervention lately, but it finally looks like France and the UN are putting their money where their mouths are (or their citizens).

This is the 2nd conflict France is entering within 3 weeks. 2011 has got to have set the record for number of military interventions by western powers in such a short period of time in this century.

Now that France is moving in against a sit tight African dictator and setting a precedent, will Britain follow with Zimbabwe? I doubt it, but one can hope.

Côte d'Ivoire was a French colony until the 60s and has always maintained close ties with France. I was just wondering how long it would be until France decided to intervene.

Yes I agree, however I have mixed feelings. I don't have too much knowledge of the Franco-sphere in Africa, but it does seems to me that the French colonies remained generally stable after de-colonization as many of the British ones instantly became drenched in blood.

But now, many of the British colonies are experiencing incredible growth rates in parity with those in China and India, while the French have remained generally stagnant and even regressive. Think Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso etc...completely hopeless countries.

So perhaps, I think many had to "get it out of their system" first. But again, places like Zimbabwe have proven otherwise. Funny thing is, Zim was decolonized in the 80s. So, maybe they haven't "got it out" of their system yet either. They're just 20 years behind the curve.

The UN forces are backing the wrong guy. Ouettara (a Muslim) has now been involved in the massacre of 800 to 1,000 Catholics in a city controlled by his forces (meaning you can't blame the other guy) - city called Duekoue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1165.story

If I understand African politics Bart, neither one of them is the right guy.

If you correctly understand African politics you'd see there's only one ruler properly qualified to run that continent in an efficient and humane fashion.

If you correctly understand African politics you'd see there's only one ruler properly qualified to run that continent in an efficient and humane fashion.



Even if the UK had the will to reassert control, it doesn't have the resources.

The sun has set on the British Empire.

True. But their legacy is that the best run nations in Africa are all former British colonies.

If anyone could fix Africa it would be the British. Other than them the best thing I can think of is to stay out of there and put up a fence to keep the inmates inside the asylum.

If that was the case Europeans would have never gone there in the first place, or would have severed links right after the 60s. On the contrary, everyone wants a piece, not just of the natural resources, but human resources too. Americans and Chinese businessmen are hoping Africans get rich quick so they can start buying their manufactured widgets. Europeans are hoping Africans get rich so they can stop going to Europe.

The British African countries (apart from Zimb) IMO will eventually assert their regional dominance and that's when stability will be more common.

Nigeria in West Africa, South Africa in the South, and Kenya in the east. Until those nations assert their dominance, there will be chaos, just like there was chaos in Europe before France and Germany asserted theirs. And of course in Asia before China centralized power.