BABYLONS SHALL FALL

"Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power." George Bernard Shaw.

This indisputable dictum alludes to the Ivorian impasse and other countries stricken with an unpleasant mayhem as a result of power. A vexed discussion has since been held on the deadlock in La Cote D'Ivoire. Listening to varied opinions from different quarters of the world, it seems that the tension in the country has heightened as both leaders;President Laurent Gbagbo and President Alhassan Ouattara, have refused to reach a peaceful consensus. In one breath, President Gbagbo is declared the substantive President-elect and in another breath, Ouattara is accepted as genuine for the presidency. Much could not be said as the declaration of Ouattara as the President gained the support of some African and International organizations.The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) fully rallied behind Ouattara and the United Nations (UN)also espoused the election of Ouattara for presidency.

On the understanding of the background which serves as a prelude to this article, I am aroused to share my views about the political instability in Cote D'Ivoire. Peeping through my critical lenses, I could spot loopholes in this saga concerning Cote D'Ivoire.

Firstly, I will swoop down on the position, decisions and efforts of ECOWAS to tame the two indecisive leaders. I strongly think ECOWAS is sitting on a hot bench because of her hasty support rendered to President Alhassan Ouattara. ECOWAS preaches according to the gospel of mediation, which it believes it is doing now but my inadequate cognizance about mediation points to the fact that before a person or an organization can be said to be mediating a situation or mediating between divisive entities, the person or organization should stand neutral. But in the case of ECOWAS,they have already declared their stance and vouched for Ouattara, therefore, it is hard for me to believe that they have a full grip of mediation in the Ivorian impasse.

This is why our African leaders in the Association are being kicked out whenever they try to induce President Gbagbo to step down. It would have been much easier for ECOWAS to leverage Gbagbo without him being ambivalent if the members had allowed neutrality to override their personal interests and what they describe as good sense of judgement. This African entity should review the language they are using to bring the impasse under control and I suggest they term it as Persuasion.

But as they persuade Gbagbo, they should also turn into the direction of Ouattara since both leaders are responsible for the unnecessary political commotion. Narrowing my point down to the UN,this international organization is also adding fuel to fire or better still propelling the deadlock and violence in the country, in the name of intervention. Don't be bewildered, what I mean is that the UN also has exaggerated the scene at Cote D'Ivoire by deploying such number of troops to the country as if they are prepared for War. Couldn't they have embarked on a journey of persuasion and peace between the Ivorian leaders before deciding to pump fear into the citizens?

I know by saying this, some people would not agree with me but that's not my focus. My aim is that it is high time Africans woke up from their slumber. So, must all our domestic issues be under the dominion of the UN? When the United States of America decided to fight Iraq boot for boot, where were our African leaders? When it is U.S.A or UN, no African view is upheld but when it is any African country, we hero worship and uphold their decision in high esteem. On the flip side, if U.S.A, Britain, France and the other foreign countries who have arisen to champion their selfish interests, other than holistically solving the problem, are sincerely interested in tranquility in Cote D'Ivoire, they should work towards it. The harsh sanctions would only inflame passions and set the situation ablaze.

Furthermore, the recent attention given to BBC's reportage on our President's "Dzi wo fie asem" is much unwelcomed. When President Barack Obama described Keanye West as a "Jackass", why didn't BBC hold his neck to it? The President made his point, even though I have my qualms over it, I still insist that we should not have much entertained and encouraged the fuss by BBC over our President's statement.

Also, the evil-smearing look at the President's statement by BBC could have been curtailed if our Foreign Minister, Alhaji Mohammed Mumuni, had not engaged in doublespeak. Entering into the studios of BBC, embellishing and distorting the President's statement was not the best our Minister could do to clear the atmosphere and shut the biased mindset of BBC on the issue. Anyway, this is my opinion; you are entitled to yours.

Now, coming back home,our President has sparked all these controversies in the air because of his double standards. I don't have any trouble with our President sending troops or not sending troops to Cote D'Ivoire, after all his decision has been corroborated. But the political colour given to the President's position is too disturbing. Sometimes, I am tempted to ask this question; Should all opposition parties always live up to their name "Oppose" and all proposition parties live up to their's "Propose"? Can't opposition parties agree to disagree with the ruling government on certain issues for development?
And since when will our political leaders stop their effrontery and slip off their political cassock on certain sensitive issues?

Back to my earlier point, it is one thing for President J.E.A Mills to bolster the legitimate force broached by ECOWAS as last resort, which is interpreted to have a connection with military intervention, and another thing for him to decline sending troops to curb the situation. I don't want to tap into the political standings of some politicians on the issue because I assertively think they are all working towards their selfish gains. Call this cynicism but I have made my point.

If President Mills does not want to convey troops to Cote D'Ivoire, then why the essence in supporting the military intervention? I guess you declare support for something when you have check the adequacy of your resources.So could our President not have refused to sign the ECOWAS agreement if he intends not to engage our troops due to limited resources or manpower or whatever the reason is, tangible or intangible? You don't support legitimate force which embraces military intervention and chicken out of the contest.

Moreover, what are the five hundred Ghanaian troops in Cote D'Ivoire doing there? Will they be asked to retreat and return home since Ghana is unwilling to devote troops? Maybe these five hundred troops are serving with the UN and therefore, helping the citizens and Ghanaian nationals in the country but should the final decision by ECOWAS be executed, would they join or rather follow their President's directive?

To close the chapter of the article, I would like to say that the solution to the Ivorian mayhem lies in the hands of the two gentlemen at the helm of affairs. ECOWAS, AU, UN and whatever country or diplomat can never advocate peace to exist if the two leaders are still reluctant to resolve the blood shedding condition of the country.

One of the leaders should be wise enough to consider the lives of the people because a soul gained is worth the progress of the country.Sometimes, when you are offended, it is advisable to forgive the offender and treat the offender as a friend again, the best that you can, in order to bring peace.

President Laurent Gbagbo and Alhassan Ouattara can end this political violence if they can reason well together and smoke the peace pipe. Beside that, nobody or nothing can bring serenity to Cote D'Ivoire except divine intervention from God which can not be contended.

Though I don't want to sound pessimistic, "Heaven helps those who help themselves", so this divine intervention can be activated if those two insensitive human beings for once become sensitive to the plight of the people. Gbagbo can step down, the same as Ouattara can give up.

I would like to digress the focus of this article and so say that, just as President Laurent Gbagbo and other power-drunk leaders, President Hosni Mubarak can't arrogate power to himself for thirty years and still reigne on the presidential throne forever. To cut a long sentence short, these power-befuddled leaders should take a cue from the unhappy end of Adolf Hitler and know that what is good for the goose is equally good for the gander.

Lastly, they must bear in mind this popular saying: "When a bird hoovers on a roof for too long, it is worth stoning".