This is something I have been meditating on for quite a while,what is the point of a consitutional monarch?

If they are a ‘consitutional monarch’, what good can they do?

I know the arguments in favour, they deny the symbolic pinnacle of power and patronage to a politician, yes, but the reality is that the Prime Minister holds all that power and wields it eagerly.

There is the connection with the past, the sense of timelessness, yes, but, it looks more pathetic and tenuous to me all the time.

If by consitutional one means there are laws, traditions and balances to the power of a monarch, then I would agree that all Christian monarchs have been ‘consitiutional monarchs’, if on the other hand one means a powerless symbol, then I would have to say I would rather not be involved.

A monarch is a symbol, but they must always be more than that, if that is all they are, then we may as well have a president. Not that I’m saying we should get rid of monarchies, only that our monarchs need to rule as well as reign!

The idea that it is wrong to have a hereditary head of state because they are hereditary, is a shallow argument! I could say it is wrong to have lots of stupid and uninformed people chosing the head of state, I could say it is wrong that an assembly of 27 men can decide who is the new European Emperor! Hereditary leaders are not that uncommon in the history of men, and they are far from ‘wrong’ or ’stupid’ as many meritorcrats would have us believe.

The fact that they tell us, teach us and brainwash us through the media every day of our lives, should tell us that they are probably wrong. Why do business men and politicians constantly go on about ‘equality’, ‘meriticracy’ and ‘democracy’? Because they control the system, they control who stands in elections, they control who chooses those who stand in the elections, they control the voting systems and who counts the votes and how they count the votes, they control which parties are allowed to exist, they control the media which portrays the contest as something other than irrelevant and they control the money.

A hereditary king who had the power to rule could be a liability to their power, a hereditary king would not have to owe anyone anything for getting into his position, he could decide to oppose certain money-making schemes, he could upset the way things were and if his people backed him, he could be more powerful then all the money men together. A real king, with real power is something they will not tolerate, that is why I want a real king with real power, not some powerless ‘consitutional monarch’!

The comment bellow was left on a Telegraph story about the Duke of Windsor’s apparent desire to return to his position after the war.

‘The present ‘monarch’ has singularly failed to protect the sovereignty of the British people against corrupt government. Some observers would conclude it has been by her deliberate choice.

She has done this since at least 1973, treaty-by-treaty. We are actually part of an end-game now, not some radical transformation.

There is no other single individual who has had better advice, nor greater responsibility. It has been her signature, and hers alone, which has ultimately denied us our nation. She knew, when she gave assent to the Treaty of Rome, what the ultimate outcome would be, because she was advised on the constitutional consequences. Now we have the ridiculous position that she is presently sovereign of thirty-odd nations, but not the one she lives in.

Given there have been so many European treaties since our accession to Rome, one must conclude that her culpability goes way beyond mere accident. In fact she is the only common factor in all of them, and ought by now to be a world expert on constitutional law, especially with respect to the EU!

It is deeply ironic, therefore, to read ‘royalists’ banging-on thoughtlessly about what great service she has done for the country in her reign. In reality, she has protected her family from the worst ravages of republicanism, in a Faustian contract that cannot last, and little else. The dynasty remains fabulously wealthy though, and even were her descendants to be exiled or deposed (as is likely, for the EU brooks no competition!), they will be well provided for.

For us, however, her once-loyal subjects, there is subsumation into a Fascist and totalitarian state, that will demonstrably stop at nothing to control all aspects of our lives. Our queen had OUR sovereignty in her protection, for her lifetime, for that was the contract between monarch and people, to which she agreed at the Abbey.

She gave it away so readily, to our certain enemies, as if it was a thing of no worth at all. It might have been a mistake, but, in all the years since, we have no hint she believes that, nor cares a whit.

Some would say it was the action of a ‘constitutional’ monarch, but to others, myself included, the right word begins with “T”, and has strong associations with Tyburn.

I no longer care who lives in Buck House. I do care however that my children are growing up in a police state, where their own country is no longer theirs and their ancient freedoms are taken from them.’

Although I am not a ‘republican’ in the Irish nationalist meaning of the word, I can still understand the commenters frustration with his Queen, for all the talking, she has not stood up for her country, and perhaps she can’t, but as some other commenters put it, what is the point if she is only window dressing? Why not go the whole hog and have some drab appointed politician or an elected politician? Why does the Queen not decide, no, I will not go along with this, I would rather lose my throne, which has now become something behind which the most repulsive radicals hide their evil deeds and expose them for what they are?

Is it not better to go out in a blaze of glory, rather than being stained with the same treason that is being committed against her people, by her politicians? Is it not better to be remebered for taking a stand and perhaps in the long term ensuring the survival of her house?

It is strange, but if there is upheaval in the years to come, Britain may end up a republic, not because they hate the idea of a monarch, but because the present queen was too good at being a ‘constitutional monarch’.

Sometimes one needs to take a risk, sometimes it is good to remain quiet, This is not the time to be quiet, if Queen Elizabeth II wants her house to continue, now may be the time to abdicate and allow someone who is not affraid to make his oppinions known, to succeed her to the crown, The Prince Charles!

ABRAHAM LINCOLN When brains, courage, strength of character, and love of country was more important than spin doctors, questionable ethics and love of the all mighty dollar. He would never be elected today.

(Abraham Lincoln)

He’d probably run as third part candidate anyway.

Picture by: dunno source Caption by: amathistblue via Advanced Lol Builder

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

cassation 2è chambre civile – 19/11/2009, n° 09-60.379 – lire

Monopoly of violence, this is the only phrase that comes to my mind every time I think of the massacre in Maguindanao that happened last Monday.

While I was playing Bloons Tower Defense just before the news got aired, I was grinning like a maniac over the set of balloons that were being popped by my mighty Tack Shooters that I lined up for my defense. But as I was watching the news, I felt for the cute and colorful balloons that were innocently popped by the continuous shots of my empowered Tack Shooters. It was not fun anymore. I suddenly felt danger for my child, for my family. I suddenly felt danger living in my own country.

We can only speculate so much – who is behind the killings? What were the reasons to commit such barbaric acts? A lot of questions come to mind, in the same way that a lot of incidents stream continuously in our minds. How can we forget the number of journalists slain under this administration, the killing of activists, the disappearance of student leaders, union leaders, and innocent farmers? That whoever is practicing their freedom of expression is anti-government.  As you could expect, our government responds in the gentlest manner it can, it sings you a lullaby and puts you to sleep.

As much as I want to trust my government, I can’t forget my political science lessons in college, one of which was, the government is the only entity that can legitimately inflict violence.

CAA Bordeaux – 1.10.2009 – n° 08BX01357 – lire

Comes at the expense of the taxpayer. Mahinda Mama 2010!

Tom Wiggans, a retired Olathe pharmaceutical executive, is a political newcomer largely unknown in the state he hopes to lead. A native of Fredonia, he returned to Kansas in January after a prominent career in the pharmaceutical industry in California. He is so far the only major Democratic candidate in the race. Wiggans filed paperwork Tuesday allowing him to raise money for the 2010 race. He declined to comment publicly on his campaign, instead e-mailing a statement to reporters.

“Now more than ever as our state and our families deal with this difficult economic climate, we need a successful business leader in the Governor’s office,” Wiggans said in the statement.”… Our state needs a Governor who can speak the language of business, jobs and prosperity — not a career politician.”

Gov. Mark Parkinson and state party chairman Larry Gates, opted not to run. Brownback, who’s leaving the U.S. Senate, is the leading Republican candidate for the job. Republicans said Democrats were desperate to find a willing candidate with the personal wealth to fund a campaign. They noted that Wiggans contributed thousands of dollars to Republican candidates while living in California and raised questions about his dedication to the Sunflower State.

“It is hard to imagine Kansas Democrats would actually nominate for governor someone who has never voted in a Kansas election,” said Amanda Adkins, chairwoman of the Republican Party. Wiggans began his pharmaceutical career after graduating from the University of Kansas. He serves on multiple state economic development boards and is a member of the KU Endowment Board of Trustees. Wiggans is married to Kathryn Wiggans, a nurse. The couple have two teenage daughters.

A search of federal campaign contributions shows Wiggans has contributed over the years to both Democrats and Republicans, including former President George W. Bush, presidential contender Rudy Giuliani and the Republican National Committee. Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said Wiggans should appeal to voters more interested in results than partisanship. He said Wiggans’ lack of name recognition, his support for Republicans and his recent arrival in Kansas shouldn’t hurt him.

Source: Wichita Eagle

In 2006 I was visiting the Philippines during the pre-election campaigning period, and was dumb-founded to read of scores of politically-motivated killings. Political candidates and their aides, advisors, assistants were being picked off in ones and twos all around the nation. I quickly learned that, sadly, this was par for the political course in the Philippines. Coming from Australia, where a political candidate would never dream of being killed simply because they stood for election, this state of affairs all but defied my comprehension. Reports I have read suggest a total of 129 people were killed in connection with the 2007 elections, and 177 wounded. The 2004 elections triggered 189 deaths!

But as little as I understand it, I’ve come to expect it. I continue to be deeply grieved, both for the country and the families of the victims, each time I hear of another killing, but rarely surprised any more. With elections coming up in 2010, the same pattern has been repeated in recent months, right up to the shooting of Jovito Baldos Diaz, former mayor of San Quintin, just a few days ago.

And yet, as much as I’ve come to expect it, I have been totally shocked by the most recent travesty – the massacre of 52 (yes, fifty-two!) family members, aides, and journalists who were travelling to file nomination papers for Esmael Mangudadatu in Maguindanao Province. This is also, simultaneously, the largest single killing of a group of journalists/media ever recorded. My heart grieves for the country of the Philippines.

Hearing of such an atrocity can at times leave us feeling utterly hopeless.  But the Philippines is a country of 92 million people who desperately need hope for their future. The people of Pilipinas need to believe in their future and commit to a different tomorrow.

In the Philippines corruption, poverty, poor life expectancy, and incredibly tough living conditions are par for the course. But it shouldn’t be so. This is a country of innovative people, passionate, loving, resourceful. Unlike some poverty-riddled African countries which suffer from lack of natural resources and rain, the Philippines is blessed with an abundance of natural resources – excellent agricultural land, unlimited marine resources, huge biodiversity and ecological opportunities, mineral reserves, and so much more. The Philippines is a country which really has unlimited opportunity.

So what’s missing? Why does the country continue to be trapped in poverty and violence? Why do political candidates have to risk their life if they run for office? Why did 129 people pay with their lives in 2006/07 in a purportedly democratic country? In a nation which is predominantly Catholic, surely most Pinoys would argue that they should be blessed by God, and He should be “on their side”?

This is a country which needs a radical change. And not just a change of office holders (although that probably wouldn’t hurt). The Philippines needs a change of heart. A change of hope. A change of healing. Filipinos need, in a ground swell of love, to commit to confronting the cancer in their society which is killing their hope for the future.

Many people ask the question “which came first – the chicken or the egg?” – which comes first, poverty or corruption? If we solve the poverty, will the corruption be eradicated? Or do we need to solve the corruption to eradicate the poverty? I don’t have a trite answer for that, and so I would argue we need to do both. We need to tackle this problem from every angle we can. (I’ll write in future about some ideas for each of those angles – there’s so many opportunities that I couldn’t possibly include them all in this article.)

As our hearts all break for this latest terrible travesty in the Philippines, let’s all commit in our every thought and deed, to be the people that will create the future we hope for – a future where democracy (and people) are respected, where power is not misused, where justice prevails, where forgiveness overcomes hatred, where compassion overflows, and where treating everybody without partiality or favouritism is the norm.

Oh Lord God, may you bless the people that together make up the nation of the Philippines.

It was Monday and we just ended our daily story conference in the afternoon. I was just fixing the schedules for the RPN 9 afternoon team. I remember deploying one of my reporters to a feature story in Mandaluyong.

However, a breaking-news was flashing over ANC. Since I couldn’t see the letters from my desk, I went near the tv.  The slug went “Buluan Vice Mayor confirms death of wife, (x)  people”. Then seconds later, I saw the death toll rising and the word  being used was already “killed” and “beheaded”.

I called up my reporter and said that I was nixing the feature story and directed her to interview the Armed Forces of the Philippines Spokesperson Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner.

Well, at least part of the story was wrong. Many of the victims were hacked, shot, and mutilated. I don’t think someone was beheaded.   Tsk.   I’m not sure but I won’t be surprised if there were severed heads.

A few minutes later the news was already having a life of its own.  Journalists were being mentioned as part of the convoy of Vice Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu.  I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.  The Vice Mayor was not talking about the notorious Abu Sayya or any faction of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

He was blaming his political rival, the Ampatuans of Maguindanao, for the deaths of more than 20 people.  (The figure has now reached around 60 and I wouldn’t be surprised if it peaks to 100)

At the nightly story conference, I told the news manager that I think this story isn’t just about murder. I said that there is a killing field there somewhere and a team should be sent.  She agreed that

I called up to check our local stations in Zamboanga and General Santos City.  Being geographically challenged that I am, I asked our Zamboanga station what’s the fastest route to Maguindanao.  Then the news manager there referred Gen San.

So I called up the local office and asked to confirm the details that were being aired over the national news.

The confirmation was very unsettling.

I called up my boss and told her about the deployment plans. I couldn’t confirm any flights by the military where we could tag along.  So I just told the team to bring their clothes just in case they have an opening and immediately fly to Maguindanao.

One of the news crew whom I sent elsewhere arrived around 9 pm. They brought me food. I was exhausted not only from the new but I was tired because I was so busy downloading, talking to the phone, sending fax messages, checking media advisories, etc etc.

I knew I had to calm down. I sat down and ate the food given to me. I had 10 minutes for myself.

I said a little prayer for the victims. I knew the feeling of being harassed for doing my job. I knew the feeling of being threatened with guns and homemade shotguns by elected officials.

The journalists who were there died because they did their job. Apparently being killed was part of the job description.

I was imagining myself being there thinking that it was another regular day where I could go back to my family.

I was also putting myself in the shoes of the other victims whose only crime was passing through the Ampatuan highway.

Even for a region where violence has been already been a way of life, this was still quite harrowing.

The body count is still rising. No arrests have been made as of this posting.

Former defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro expelled the Ampatuans from the Lakas-Kampi-CMD party. You have my vote sir. You are the only presidentiable (and an administration ally) who was not afraid of doing something.

Today is a day of National Mourning.  But what good would mourning do if there is no justice? Souls are still crying from the hillside that was already prepared for them by the butchers of Maguindanao.

The United Nations defines genocide as any act committed with the idea of destroying in whole or in part a national, ethnic, or religious group. This includes such acts as:

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)
• Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group

(See: http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/treaties/genocide.asp)

What happened on November 23 was not the annihilation of a race. It was meant to wipe out a family. It was also meant to send a chilling effect against those who want to contest the power that was given to the warring clans.

What happened on November 23 was political genocide in my book.

It is already 8 am,Thursday, November 26 and the latest news was that the AFP already took the provincial capitol of Maguindanao.  I support my soldiers who have fearlessly declared war on bandits who have no respect for human rights. I laud the AFP leadership for their swift action.

Let the critics shut their mouth first until the military finishes its mission in capturing those who have committed the atrocities against our people, against our innocent brothers and sisters, against the journalists.

You will be just creating noise amidst the wailing of an already heart-broken nation.  The AFP is our light and our hope at this time.  They will deliver justice, in whatever means.

Barbaric acts have no place in any society. I support my military in their endeavor because I am angry and because they are our only hope.

I will never forget…11/23/09… The Massacre in Ampatuan…

If his website is any indicator than he is going to be one hell of a Congressman.

Hilarious fail.

(Hat Tip: Atrios)

-Ian

VIDEO AND ARTICLE

they are afraid of us, because we are not afraid!
posted by Tyler Shipley

November 25, 2009

→Dominion Stories

Posted by Tyler Shipley on November 24th 2009 at 8:51pm

It is with excitement and apprehension that I prepare for my arrival in Tegucigalpa, from where I will be posting reports this week in the lead-up to the boycott of the Nov. 29th elections. I am excited by the prospect of meeting people like Berta Caceres, an indigenous leader of the resistance whose incendiary speeches in the streets of the capital have stirred me with admiration for the bravery of the Honduran people facing daily repression and violence but refusing to back down from the project of building a new country. I am apprehensive at the prospect of meeting any one of the 2000 soldiers, 15,000 police and 5000 reservists that have been mobilized by the Micheletti regime to ensure “free and fair elections.”

As Honduras lurches towards confrontation between the perpetrators of electoral farce and the people who are demanding that their voices be heard, it seems instructive to revisit the moment that, in many respects, set the scene for the current crisis. Indeed, what is perhaps most striking about the struggle for constitutional reform in 2009 is the similarity it bears to the context that led to the signing of the 1982 constitution that the resistance is seeking to reform.

The 1980s were not a pleasant time in Central America. The revolutionary social movements that had achieved some success in the 60s and 70s were in the process of being ‘rolled back’ by the United States and its local allies in what amounted to a low-intensity war; a truly terrorist campaign that left thousands of bodies in its wake. The political Left in Honduras, perhaps best represented by the National Federation of Honduras Peasants (FENACH), had not been able to achieve the kind of military and political success that characterized the guerillas in Guatemala or the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. As a result, Honduras became a primary base from which the United States launched its campaigns of terror against those neighbouring countries. In addition to the 18 military bases it established and the 10,000 American troops stationed there, the U.S. also provided the Honduran armed forces with over $100 million between 1980-84.

This infusion of money and technical support to the military and business elite reinforced the strength of the oligarchy in Tegucigalpa and led to dramatic increases in poverty, inequality and political repression. The 1982 constitution was written after decades of military dictatorship while Honduras was playing host to a US-led paramilitary contra force of over 15,000 soldiers trained in what we now call ‘counter-insurgency’ – specializing in campaigns of terror against primarily poor and ill-equipped guerilla forces and their supporters. In the period 1981-84, when the new constitution was being written, ratified and established into political order, the regime carried out 214 political assassinations, 110 ‘disappearances,’ and 1,947 illegal detentions. Given that context, calling that constitution ‘representative’ of any but the most elite strata of Honduran society would be patently absurd; the vast majority of people in the country were living in abject poverty and ceaseless fear of their own soldiers and police.

Fast forward to 2009, and the struggle for a re-opening of that same constitution. The Honduran oligarchy wasn’t happy when Manuel Zelaya refused to grant new mining concessions, or when he raised the minimum wage, or when he vetoed a new law prohibiting birth-control pills (which has subsequently been passed under the coup regime.) But the proposal to open up the 1982 constitution for reform was, evidently, the last straw. Despite the rhetoric so happily repeated for North American audiences, the constitution was not being re-opened in order to keep Zelaya in power; the vote that was to happen on June 28th, the morning of the coup, was a non-binding referendum to determine whether there was, indeed, an appetite to re-write the constitution. A strong ‘yes’ vote would have prompted Zelaya to form an assembly to evaluate and re-constitute the nation’s most fundamental code of laws. That assembly would present its efforts to the congress, where the new constitution would have to be accepted. This complicated process could never have taken place in the few months that remained in Zelaya’s term.

But the Zelaya-as-Chavez story has played perfectly in the United States and Canada, where leaders have stubbornly refused to condemn the coup and have recently claimed that they will support the results of the Nov. 29th elections despite the fact that hundreds of candidates at various levels have withdrawn in boycott. And sure enough, as Hondurans have struggled in the streets for the right to write a new constitution that truly represents their needs, the repression has looked exactly like that of the early 1980s. Just as Hondurans could not possibly expect a legitimate constitution to be written for them in the context of assassinations, disappearances and 15,000 contra soldiers in 1982, the resistance of 2009 knows that it cannot expect free and fair elections to be administered by a regime that has killed people in the streets for daring to believe that their most basic democratic processes would be respected.

“The elections,” says Berta Caceres at a speech in early November, “would have to be between the resistance and the coup-makers” in order to be legitimate. That clearly is not the way things are going. But the project of reforming the constitution that was forced upon Honduras in 1982 will not go away. Says Berta, “I’ve been to those marginal barrios in Tegucigalpa, to those neighbourhoods at night, and you see and listen to the strength with which people propose that national constituent assembly. We should learn to define, to build collectively the nature, the concepts, the content of that assembly. We shouldn’t wait any longer.” As the speech finishes, the crowd chants “they are afraid of us because we are not afraid!” Perhaps my apprehensions were misguided.

Tyler Shipley is a graduate student and activist from Toronto, Canada. He is in Tegucigalpa with a delegation organized by Rights Action reporting on the resistance to the coup and the Nov. 29 elections.

The Dissenting Democrat was reflecting back on his voting history to recall that his votes have never been a reliable indicator of electoral victory. He’s voted for the “winner” in only three of the eleven presidential elections in which he has participated: Carter in 1976, Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008. In every other election he’s been committed to “losers”.

Nevertheless, in each victory he was disappointed. By the third year of Carter’s term, the Dissenting Democrat was in Ted Kennedy’s camp urging a challenge. By the second year of Clinton’s first term, the Dissenting Democrat was already committed to Ralph Nader. And now yet in Obama’s first year, the Dissenting Democrat doubts if the nice-talking young man from the streets of Chicago will get his vote again.

In the none of the winners’ cases was the Dissenter ever an enthusiastic voter. In 1976 and in 1992, he served as an A.B.C. delegate first as “Anybody But Carter” and then as “Anybody But Clinton”. In 2008, he remained doubtful of Obama’s progressive creds despite the overwhelming media hype almost until election day itself, then he voted his hope and not his reason.

For History’s sake, but mostly for the fun of it, here are the Dissenting Democrat’s favored candidates from 1968-2008:

(* indicates the election vote, others were supported during the campaigns prior to election day)

1968:
Eugene J McCarthy
Hubert H Humphrey *

1972:
Eugene J McCarthy
Edmund Muskie
Hubert H Humphrey
George McGovern *

1976:
Walter F Mondale
Fred Harris
Mo Udall
Jerry Brown
ABC
Jimmy Carter *

1980:
Jerry Brown
Edward M Kennedy
John Anderson (INDEPENDENT)
Barry Commoner * (CITIZENS PARTY)

1984:
Walter F Mondale *

1988:
Paul Simon
Jesse Jackson
Michael Dukakis *

1992:
Jerry Brown
Larry Agran
ABC
Bill Clinton *

1996:
Ralph Nader * (GREEN PARTY)

2000:
Bill Bradley
Ralph Nader
Al Gore *

2004:
Dennis Kucinich
John Edwards
John Kerry *

2008:
John Edwards
Barack Obama *

The Dissenting Democrat is persuaded by the contention of Eugene Victor Debs who said: “I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don’t want and get it”.

We were having lunch today when we started to hear honking outside.  This by itself is not unusual, except for that they were honking in unison, which was unusual.

I poked my head outside and there was a parade of cars with posters on the sides, that stopped in front of the house.  Ana Maria said that today was some march against violence against women, so at first that’s what we thought it was about.  But turns out that it was not.

Turns out that the people were advocating for a guy to become the president of the Lima Association of Lawyers, and they were driving passed the courthouse across the street.

Professional Lawyer

Ok, for realz, this time he quits. Pinky promise.

Heh.

-Ian

A big hat tip to Colin Byrne’s blog for drawing this one to my attention.  First the disclaimer, clearly online and social media are evolving into powerful tools for political campaigners. They offer opportunities for a better quality of discussion and conversation between voters, and between voters and the parties and candidates.

However…

…As the survey by Weber Shandwick of 1,000 Uk voters highlighted in Colin’s blog indicates, when asked to rate which media they believe to hold most influence over their voting decisions, voters nominated the traditional “old” media or press, radio and TV as holding the most influence at 59%.  Despite the huge hype blogs and social networks such as Facebook were only rated by 5% as influential.

This resonates with some of my previous research work, indeed the pattern is entirely predictable, the role of new media for the campaign will be grossly overhyped by writers in the old media and elsewhere. Research I conducted with John Downey at Loughborough University for the Electoral Commission in 2005 found, that contrary to popular myth, blogs were peripheral to setting the campaign news agenda.

I am sure in 2010 their significance will be both be greater than last time around AND grossly exaggerated in election commentary.

A recent poll in the Observer showed the Tory lead over Labour has been slashed to 6 points, meaning there would be a hung Parliament. So, what do we all make of this?

Oh and by the way, just over 1500 views this month, the highest we have had since last May rather than June now! Keep it up.

By Max

Security Council Renews Arms Embargo, Diamond Trade Ban in Côte d’Ivoire

Security Council Expresses Concern at Delay in Publication of Provisional

Secretary-General Welcomes Provisional Voters List in Côte d’Ivoire, Encourages All Parties to Build on This Critical Milestone, Determine New Election Date

     Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on 24th November on all parties in Côte d’Ivoire to fix a new date as soon as possible for their much-delayed elections, now postponed yet again from their latest deadline of this month.

    Welcoming 23rd November publication of the provisional voter list in the West African country, split by civil war in 2002 into a Government-ruled south and a rebel-controlled north, he assured all parties that the UN would continue to provide the necessary financial, technical and logistical aid to help them organize and conduct open, free, fair and transparent elections.

    The elections, originally scheduled for as far back as 2005, were planned for 29 November after repeated postponements.

    “The Secretary-General believes that with this important development [the provisional list], the Ivorian parties and institutions have made significant progress towards the establishment of a consensual and transparent voters list,” a statement issued by Mr. Ban’s spokesperson said.

    “The Secretary-General now encourages all the Ivorian parties to build further on this critical milestone in order to prepare the final voters list and move forward in determining a new election date as soon as possible.”

    A UN peacekeeping mission, known as UNOCI, has been stationed in Côte d’Ivoire since 2004 to help ensure a ceasefire and pave the way for permanent peace and democratic elections. Reauthorized repeatedly since then, most recently until 31 January 2010, it currently comprises nearly 8,400 uniformed personnel, as well as 407 international civilian staff.

Côte d’Ivoire Country Operations Profile

UNHCR Maps – Côte d’Ivoire

    A peace agreement between the Government and the rebel Forces Nouvelles (FN) in March 2007 resulted in the appointment of FN leader Guillaume Soro as prime minister. This event marked a turning point in the peace process in Côte d’Ivoire. All the signatories to the accord, signed in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, confirmed their commitment to peace and stability, a development welcomed by the international community.

    The Ouagadougou Agreement included provisions for a joint military command, a new government, the disbanding of militias and armed groups, assisted returns of internally displaced persons (IDPs), and elections within 10 months. The agreement also included the gradual removal of the zone de confiance, a buffer strip set up by international peacekeepers to separate government troops in the south from the FN in the north, and the resumption of the audiences foraines, or public hearings related to the granting of birth certificates, identity papers and settlement of nationality issues.

    Notwithstanding the delay in implementing some of the major aspects of the agreement, including the disarmament and demobilization of armed factions, key groups in the country have agreed that the first round of presidential elections should be held on 30 November 2008.

The needs

    Self-reliance projects are required for the remaining Liberian refugees in Côte d’Ivoire to help with their local integration. Persons with specific needs who do not benefit from local services need assistance. Urban refugees, who are affected by the current economic crisis in the country, need help to maintain minimum living standards. Women and children at risk need educational programmes and income-generating activities. Ivorian refugees in neighbouring countries require assistance to return to Côte d’Ivoire and to reintegrate into their areas of origin.

Main objectives

• Promote the voluntary repatriation and reintegration of Ivorian refugees.
• Protect and assist urban refugees in Abidjan.
• Facilitate the local integration of some 24,000 Liberian refugees through self-reliance projects, support local structures and help individuals with specific needs.
• Provide community-based assistance in the health, education, social services, sanitation and water supply sectors.
• Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.
• Pursue third-country resettlement for eligible cases.

UNHCR Statistical Yearbook Country Data Sheet – Côte d’Ivoire

• 2005 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook Country Data Sheet – Côte d’Ivoire

• 2004 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook Country Data Sheet – Côte d’Ivoire

• 2003 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook Country Data Sheet – Côte d’Ivoire

• 2002 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook Country Data Sheet – Côte d’Ivoire