Ivory Coast: UN plans more peacekeepers

Alain Le Roy said the UN was facing more hostility in Ivory Coast

Continue reading the main story

UN peacekeepers in Ivory Coast are sending a request to the Security Council for 1,000 to 2,000 more troops amid the continuing political crisis.

UN peacekeeping chief in Ivory Coast Alain Le Roy said he hoped the troops would be available in a few weeks.

UN peacekeepers have been protecting a hotel in Abidjan that is sheltering Alassane Ouattara, the man recognised internationally as the new president.

Incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo has refused to cede power.

Mr Le Roy said the request for more troops would be made in the next few days.

He said they were needed because of the current force's additional duty of protecting the hotel.

Mr Le Roy also said the UN was facing more hostility because of what he called false reports on the Gbagbo-controlled media.

An estimated 10,000 UN troops are already in the country.

'No civil war'

A blockade remains around the hotel despite African mediators reporting on Tuesday that Mr Gbagbo had agreed to lift it.

On Wednesday his spokesman, Foreign Minister Alcide Djedje, said the blockade could only end if former rebels protecting Mr Ouattara left the building.

He said Mr Gbagbo had only agreed to study the conditions for lifting the blockade.

Mr Djedje said: "The Ivorian army feels it cannot tolerate that 300 heavily armed soldiers from the former rebellion should be in the hotel. That is a threat including for President Gbagbo whose residence is five minutes away by boat.

"If the [New Forces] soldiers go, the blockade will be lifted."

The north of the country is controlled by the New Forces, the former rebel movement that supports Mr Ouattara.

The 28 November election was intended to reunify the country - the world's leading cocoa producer - which has been divided since the 2002 conflict.

Alcide Djedje said rebel soldiers must leave the hotel in Abidjan for the blockade to end

Reporters reached Mr Ouattara's hotel on Wednesday and he told them Mr Gbagbo had never been sincere in his offers.

"He has never been up to his commitments, he wants to gain time in order to bring in arms, ammunitions and mercenaries, because he wants to continue to stay in office but this will not work."

But Mr Ouattara insisted this did not mean there would be a civil war.

"No, it will not end in a war because clearly Ecowas will make the decisions quickly to remove him."

The West African regional body Ecowas has threatened to force Mr Gbagbo out, but is trying mediation efforts first.

Mr Ouattara said: "I want this to be clear: removing one person does not mean civil war."

He added: "My government and myself will stay here until he leaves the presidential offices, so we can go and work fully - as the Ivorian people have decided to put us in office."

Both men have been sworn in as president.

On Monday, Ecowas sent the presidents of Benin, Cape Verde and Sierra Leone to negotiate Mr Gbagbo's departure - their second attempt to do so in a week.

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, representing the African Union (AU), also attended.

The leaders told Mr Gbagbo to recognise Mr Ouattara as the elected leader of the country.

Mr Ouattara was initially proclaimed the winner by the country's election commission - a verdict backed by the UN, which helped organise the poll.

But the country's Constitutional Council, headed by an ally of Mr Gbagbo, later ruled that he had won, citing voting irregularities in the north.

Questions

1. Why do you think corruption is rife in the Ivory Coast?
2. How has Singapore prevented political problems such as these?
3. If a new prime minister is elected in Singapore, would the incumbent refuse to cede power or would he cooperate? Why?
4. What is the role of the UN in the crisis?
5. How will the UN assist to end the crisis?
6. Using relevant information and knowledge, how much longer do you think the blockade will last? Why?
7. Do you think the internationally recognised President Alassane Ouattara will ever gain control of the country? Why? 

North Korean attack on South Korea pushes China's patience

Houses destroyed in the North Korean attack on Yeonpyeong island: China has shied away from condemning the attack. Photograph: Dong-A Ilbo/AFP/Getty Images

It is only weeks since China's leaders commemorated the 60th anniversary of its entry into the Korean War and the "friendship established in battle" with the North.

But the last week's events demonstrate that its neighbour and ally is more often a source of frustration than sympathy these days. Indeed, Beijing's cautious response to the artillery attack – refusing to ascribe blame and calling on all sides to show restraint – should not be mistaken for approval.

"Of course they [Chinese leaders] will be angry. But they are angry in their hearts – not publicly," said Shi Yinhong, professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing. "It is hard to find the delicate balance between relations with the North and the South. It is also hard to balance international expectations and China's trait of not openly condemning or pressing North Korea hard," added Zhu Feng, professor of international relations at Peking University, though he warned that Beijing's patience would run out if the North continued to act provocatively.

China is the North's major ally, providing as much as 90% of its energy and up to 45% of its food on some estimates. It is also a permanent member of the security council, allowing it to veto resolutions. It has more influence over the North than any other state: a useful card in its hand as a regional and global player. But there are limits to how it can use it unless it is willing to risk regional instability, the North's collapse, a flood of refugees along the lengthy border between the countries and potentially a unified peninsula.

"The Chinese reaction is unhappy, unhappy, unhappy. It damages the economy of the region and this is what matters for China. But they don't have much leverage," said Dr Andrei Lankov, an expert on the North at Kookmin University in Seoul. "has a choice between an unruly North which makes provocations and an unstable North which will collapse. [The former] is clearly the lesser evil."

China has, in the past, slapped down the North in public. But analysts suggest Beijing does not believe such measures are effective and does not want to damage relations with the North, already resentful of Beijing's increasing ties with Seoul – trade between China and the South reached $140bn last year; in comparison, that with the North was worth less than $3bn in 2008. Shi argued that Beijing's stance towards the North in the last year – increasing investment and showing support for the succession process – made it less likely than ever that it would criticise the North.

"They don't want to give the US any excuse to be militarily involved in the area and that is one of the reasons they are not engaged more fully through the UN in a sanctions regime," added Smith.

Besides, the Chinese might point out, switching carrots for sticks has not proved an effective strategy for the United States and South Korea. Smith argued that the North felt pushed into a corner because Seoul and Washington were not negotiating with it.

"They don't see that their interests can be pursued in almost any forum except discussions with China," she said.

Questions

1. Should North Korea have attacked South Korea?
2. What is the impact of the North and South Korean conflict on the world?
3. How does the altercation impact Singapore and you?
4. How can Singapore assist in the resolution of the conflict?