Victor’s justice undermines reconciliation in Ivory Coast

by robbie | August 31, 2012 4:56 pm

 

Members of Ivory Coast's armed forces march during the country's Independence Day celebrations on Aug. 7. (Credit: rcb)

Mem­bers of Ivory Coast’s armed forces march dur­ing the coun­try’s Inde­pen­dence Day cel­e­bra­tions on Aug. 7. (rcb)

DUEKOUE, Ivory Coast — It was long past mid­night when a truck belong­ing to the Repub­li­can Forces of Ivory Coast (FRCI) pulled up to a small, open-air restau­rant in Duék­oué, a town of 75,000 in the coun­try’s west. The crowd that night in March was most­ly young men, many of them drink­ing and danc­ing to club tracks played by a local disc jock­ey. Not long after the sol­diers’ arrival, 16 of the men, includ­ing the DJ, were round­ed up for arrest. Although no rea­son was giv­en, the men went will­ing­ly, even help­ing to push the truck when it would not start on its own.

The men were tak­en to a drab three-floor hotel on the town’s main road that serves as local head­quar­ters for the FRCI, the nation­al army under Pres­i­dent Alas­sane Ouat­tara, who came to pow­er in May 2011. Five were released upon arrival. But the remain­ing 11, mem­bers of the Guéré eth­nic group, who large­ly sup­port­ed incum­bent Pres­i­dent Lau­rent Gbag­bo in the coun­try’s dis­put­ed Novem­ber 2010 elec­tion, were told to strip and hand over their belong­ings. They spent the night crammed in a six-foot-by-six-foot guard post with board­ed-up win­dows.   The fol­low­ing morn­ing, the detainees lined up in the hotel’s con­crete court­yard, and the local FRCI chief, Kone Daou­da, called the DJ for­ward. Fer­nand Gninin, a 38-year-old detainee, recalls that the chief was appar­ent­ly angry that the DJ had spo­ken out against alleged FRCI abus­es dur­ing his set the night before. Accord­ing to Gninin and oth­ers present, Daou­da began kick­ing the DJ while declar­ing, “I’m going to show you that Duék­oué is under my control.”

One by one, sol­diers abused the oth­er men, too. Gninin says that one held his head to the asphalt with a boot­ed foot while anoth­er beat his bare back with an orange pole, leav­ing mul­ti­ple scars. It took sev­er­al days and a stream of appeals from local com­mu­ni­ty lead­ers before the detainees were released.

There are many in Duék­oué who would call them lucky. Dur­ing the six months of vio­lence trig­gered by the last elec­tion, the FRCI earned a rep­u­ta­tion for human rights abus­es and gen­er­al beyond-the-law brutish­ness. In the first year after Ouat­tara became pres­i­dent, FRCI sol­diers in the west­ern region remained noto­ri­ous not just for arbi­trary arrests and beat­ings but for extra­ju­di­cial killings tar­get­ing Gbag­bo sup­port­ers. In ear­ly May, com­mu­ni­ty lead­ers pro­vid­ed a list of 18 such killings they said had occurred in the first four months of this year alone.

What we ask the author­i­ties to do is to let the Guéré peo­ple live. Now there are just these cold killings. How can we go on with true peace in these conditions?”

Many of the cas­es on the list high­light the arbi­trari­ness and speed that are the fre­quent hall­marks of state ter­ror. François Gboble­meu, 50, was tak­en from his home by FRCI sol­diers one night in late March, about a week after the raid involv­ing the DJ. His wife, Ange Fie, remem­bers that the sol­diers used vague lan­guage when she asked what Gboble­meu had done wrong, say­ing only that he had been involved in “out­side actions,” which she took to mean anti-gov­ern­ment mili­tia activ­i­ty. She knew noth­ing of this, and no evi­dence was pro­vid­ed to back up the claim. The next day, Gboble­meu’s son was called to iden­ti­fy the body after it had been dis­cov­ered two kilo­me­ters away. “He was nude,” the young man recalls. “There was only a piece of cloth on him. His head was explod­ed.” Such dis­ap­pear­ances were fright­en­ing enough dur­ing the cri­sis of 2010-11, but the fact that they were still occur­ring in Duék­oué more than a year after the oust­ed pres­i­dent had been detained under orders of his suc­cess­ful rival, and there­fore out­side the con­text of armed con­flict, made them even more unsettling.

A For­mu­la for Violence

The post-elec­tion vio­lence in Ivory Coast, which last­ed from Decem­ber 2010 to May 2011, seemed to fit a for­mu­la. There was a vote. There was a dis­put­ed result. There was a leader, in this case Gbag­bo, who refused to cede pow­er despite hav­ing lost. There were rebels eager to take up arms against the state, and mer­ce­nar­ies will­ing, for the right price, to fight for either side. There were tar­get­ed attacks against spe­cif­ic tribes. There were indis­crim­i­nate attacks against civil­ians. And in the end, there were the num­bers that pro­vide some sense of scale — 3,000 dead, more than 150 raped, hun­dreds of thou­sands dis­placed. These ele­ments togeth­er make up a some­what stan­dard inci­dent of polit­i­cal vio­lence — uni­ver­sal­ly seen as unfor­tu­nate but rarely marked by any form of mean­ing­ful response.

Except that Ivo­rians were promised a dif­fer­ent out­come. Luis Moreno-Ocam­po, then chief pros­e­cu­tor at the Inter­na­tion­al Crim­i­nal Court, filed a request in June 2011 to launch an inves­ti­ga­tion of the post-elec­tion vio­lence, and judges gave their approval in Octo­ber. Mean­while, Ouat­tara, the vic­tor, vowed to coop­er­ate with the ICC while also press­ing for bal­anced jus­tice at the local lev­el, seem­ing­ly less­en­ing the like­li­hood that per­pe­tra­tors — even those who sup­port­ed him — would ben­e­fit from impuni­ty. With this com­bined effort, the argu­ment went, both the exper­tise of the ICC and the local buy-in asso­ci­at­ed with domes­tic tri­als could be brought to bear on the jus­tice process, there­by help­ing ensure that the root caus­es of the con­flict could be resolved. This has­n’t happened.

After one year under Ouat­tara, offi­cials’ ear­ly state­ments on how jus­tice would play out had begun to seem less like firm com­mit­ments and more like vows made dur­ing, and restrict­ed to, the heady first days of peace­time and a new admin­is­tra­tion. Ouat­tara still speaks of bal­anced jus­tice. And the noto­ri­ous­ly painstak­ing process of bring­ing ICC cas­es to tri­al con­tin­ues to unfold. The decade-old insti­tu­tion even achieved a mile­stone in Novem­ber 2011, when Gbag­bo became the first for­mer head of state to be tak­en into its cus­tody. But the only peo­ple impli­cat­ed in pro­ceed­ings at both the nation­al and inter­na­tion­al lev­els were mem­bers of Gbag­bo’s camp. None of Ouat­tara’s out-of-con­trol fol­low­ers, includ­ing mem­bers of the offi­cial armed forces under his con­trol, have been charged or even cred­i­bly investigated.

In the eyes of many Gbag­bo sup­port­ers, the cred­i­bil­i­ty of the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty has already been dam­aged by mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion on the part of France and the UN at the height of the cri­sis. The arrest of Gbag­bo on April 11, 2011, after 10 days of fight­ing in Abid­jan, was pre­cip­i­tat­ed by an attack on his res­i­dence car­ried out by French forces ear­li­er in the day. World lead­ers saw the inter­ven­tion as a way to min­i­mize the slaugh­ter of civil­ians and quick­ly resolve an esca­lat­ing con­flict; U.S. Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma sin­gled out the UN and France for praise in a state­ment released after Gbag­bo was tak­en into cus­tody. They may have been right. But the more than 40 per­cent of vot­ers who want­ed Gbag­bo to be pres­i­dent see the involve­ment of these forces not as an impar­tial bid to stop the bleed­ing but rather as an obvi­ous choos­ing of sides. The poten­tial acqui­es­cence by the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty to one-sided jus­tice would thus be seen by a large chunk of the pop­u­la­tion as the con­tin­u­a­tion of a nar­ra­tive stretch­ing back to before the con­flict ended.

Instead of receiv­ing con­struc­tive tran­si­tion­al jus­tice, Ivo­rians have so far received a form of jus­tice that only legit­imizes the new Ouat­tara regime. This rais­es the ques­tion of just what kind of behav­ior such “vic­tor’s jus­tice” might enable. The ongo­ing abus­es in the west — arbi­trary abduc­tions, beat­ings, and killings — are the ear­ly answers. Here, after all, were mil­i­tary forces sus­pect­ed of involve­ment in atroc­i­ties com­mit­ted dur­ing the post-elec­tion vio­lence, and instead of being pros­e­cut­ed, they have been giv­en free rein to com­mit new out­rages while osten­si­bly com­bat­ing threats against the state. The poten­tial impli­ca­tions for long-term peace are clear dur­ing inter­views with the lead­ers of those groups that have been reg­u­lar­ly vic­tim­ized by the FRCI, most of whom, fear­ing reprisals, speak on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty. “We are very much in favor of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion, but it looks like the mis­sion of the FRCI in this region is to exter­mi­nate all the youth,” says one com­mu­ni­ty leader. “What we ask the author­i­ties to do is to let the Guéré peo­ple live,” says anoth­er. “Now there are just these cold killings. How can we go on with true peace in these conditions?”

Peace Through Justice?

This past July marked 10 years since the cre­ation of the ICC, the world’s first per­ma­nent court set up to try cas­es of war crimes, crimes against human­i­ty, and geno­cide. In March, judges reached their first ver­dict in the case of Con­golese mili­tia leader Thomas Luban­ga, who was found guilty of recruit­ing and deploy­ing child sol­diers and lat­er giv­en a 14-year prison sen­tence. Clos­ing argu­ments in a sec­ond Con­go tri­al were heard in May. Last year, around the height of the Arab Spring, the UN Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil vot­ed unan­i­mous­ly to give the court juris­dic­tion over crimes com­mit­ted in Libya, mark­ing the first time the Unit­ed States and Chi­na had endorsed ICC action. This was seen as evi­dence that major pow­ers once hos­tile to the court were soft­en­ing their stances, a trend that began with the Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil’s 2005 vote on crimes in Dar­fur, Sudan, when the Unit­ed States and Chi­na abstained so that inves­ti­ga­tions could proceed.

The Sudan case, how­ev­er, also betrayed the ICC’s lack of enforce­ment pow­ers — a fre­quent focus of the court’s many detrac­tors. More than three years since an arrest war­rant was issued for Sudanese Pres­i­dent Omar Has­san al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against human­i­ty — lat­er expand­ed to include geno­cide — he remains in pow­er. Sudan is not a mem­ber of the ICC, but Bashir has freely vis­it­ed such mem­ber coun­tries as Chad and Malawi that are required to arrest him under the terms of the ICC’s found­ing treaty. In neigh­bor­ing Kenya, an inves­ti­ga­tion into post-elec­tion vio­lence that occurred in 2007-08 has prompt­ed attempts to orches­trate a mass African exo­dus from the court and, more recent­ly, to move rel­e­vant cas­es to African soil. And in Libya, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of Muam­mar Gaddafi, is being held in the moun­tain town of Zin­tan amid uncer­tain­ty over where and when he might get a court date.

At the core of the ICC’s mis­sion is the prin­ci­ple of com­ple­men­tar­i­ty, which holds that the insti­tu­tion should serve as a “court of last resort,” act­ing only when gov­ern­ments lack the capac­i­ty or will­ing­ness — or both — to try sus­pects them­selves. More­over, the court is designed to try only the biggest cas­es, with small­er ones falling to nation­al courts. In this way, legal pro­ceed­ings at both the inter­na­tion­al and nation­al lev­els share the bur­den of elim­i­nat­ing impuni­ty for atroc­i­ty crimes. How­ev­er, the events in Sudan, Kenya, and Libya point to an almost exis­ten­tial prob­lem fac­ing the ICC that could threat­en its abil­i­ty to get any­thing done in those coun­tries. Gov­ern­ments do not always share the court’s val­ues and may, when pressed, try to obstruct its work. What is more, they may be reluc­tant to imple­ment domes­tic reforms that could change the con­di­tions that con­tributed to vio­lence in the first place. Thou­sands of miles away, a less high-pro­file man­i­fes­ta­tion of this same prob­lem appears to be play­ing out in Ivory Coast.

Peace v. Conflict

Though the coun­try was long hailed as a post-colo­nial African suc­cess sto­ry, the caus­es of Ivory Coast’s con­flict can be traced back decades, to the pres­i­den­cy of Félix Houphouët-Boigny. A for­mer farmer and doc­tor, he rose to pow­er at the time of the nation’s inde­pen­dence from France in 1960, build­ing on polit­i­cal vic­to­ries scored dur­ing colo­nial rule. He remained in office more than three decades, a reign marked by eco­nom­ic growth that sur­passed all oth­er coun­tries in the region — the “Ivo­rian mir­a­cle.” In addi­tion to Ivo­rian elites and French busi­ness inter­ests, Houphouët-Boigny ensured his coun­try’s wealth reached poor fam­i­lies whose labor helped fuel the boom.

Houphouët-Boigny died in 1993, and the ensu­ing trans­fer of pow­er was far from smooth. Ambi­gu­i­ties in the con­sti­tu­tion led to a pow­er strug­gle between Hen­ri Konan Bédié, the pres­i­dent of the Nation­al Assem­bly, and Ouat­tara, Houphouët-Boigny’s prime min­is­ter, both of whom tried to claim the top post. The impasse was ulti­mate­ly resolved in Bédié’s favor, spawn­ing a rival­ry between the two men that would have grave reper­cus­sions for the nation­al polit­i­cal cli­mate for years to come. And there were eth­nic over­tones. Advis­ers to Bédié, a native of cen­tral Ivory Coast, invent­ed the con­cept of ivoir­ité, or “Ivo­rian­ness,” to define Ivo­rians from the cen­tral and south­ern regions of the coun­try. This con­cept exclud­ed immi­grants and north­ern­ers, groups that had been warm­ly wel­comed in Ivory Coast before the econ­o­my began to fal­ter in the late 1980s. Embrac­ing the rhetoric of ivoir­ité, Bédié took advan­tage of ris­ing xeno­pho­bia to pre­vent Ouat­tara, a Mus­lim born in the coun­try’s north who spent much of his child­hood in Upper Vol­ta (now Burk­i­na Faso), from run­ning for pres­i­dent on the grounds that he was not suf­fi­cient­ly Ivorian.

Fol­low­ing a series of mil­i­tary, polit­i­cal, and judi­cial maneu­ver­ings begin­ning in 1999, rebel groups under the ban­ner of the Forces Nou­velles (New Forces) even­tu­al­ly occu­pied the north­ern half of the nation as peace talks between the var­i­ous par­ties stum­bled — a state of affairs that would pre­vail for years.

Lega­cy of Violence

The lega­cy of ivoir­ité was plain to see in the 2010-11 con­flict. In the west, a region that large­ly vot­ed for Gbag­bo, oppos­ing forces loy­al respec­tive­ly to Ouat­tara and Gbag­bo com­mit­ted a suc­ces­sion of atroc­i­ties. Toward the end, with pro-Ouat­tara forces mov­ing through the region en route to Abid­jan, pro-Gbag­bo fight­ers, includ­ing Liber­ian mer­ce­nar­ies, lin­gered to inflict final, dev­as­tat­ing attacks on north­ern Ivo­rians and West African immi­grants liv­ing in the area. On March 22 last year, mer­ce­nar­ies and pro-Gbag­bo mili­ti­a­men armed with auto­mat­ic weapons, RPGs, and machetes killed at least 37 West African immi­grants in the town of Bédi-Goa­zon, slay­ing many inside their homes before loot­ing their valu­ables. Three days lat­er, in the town of Bloléquin, mili­ti­a­men and mer­ce­nar­ies killed some 100 north­ern­ers and immi­grants who had sought shel­ter in the town pre­fec­ture. The eth­nic dimen­sion to this attack, and the under­ly­ing role played by ivoir­ité, could not have been more explic­it. Those who could speak the lan­guage of the local tribe, the Guéré, were spared, while those who could not were killed.

Four days lat­er, on March 29, the west­ern town of Duék­oué was home to the most lethal episode of the con­flict, com­mit­ted by forces loy­al to Ouat­tara. That morn­ing, FRCI sol­diers and oth­er fight­ers tore through the town’s Car­refour neigh­bor­hood, com­posed main­ly of Guéré fam­i­lies, killing most males they saw regard­less of age. They used guns, knives, and machetes, spar­ing women but set­ting homes ablaze. A UN probe found that at least 505 peo­ple died in Duék­oué dur­ing the six-month con­flict, though the Inter­na­tion­al Com­mit­tee for the Red Cross put the death toll at more than 800 for the March 29 mas­sacre alone. More than a year lat­er, sit­ting beside the lumpy earth that cov­ers a mass grave in Car­refour, a rare clear­ing in a neigh­bor­hood oth­er­wise dom­i­nat­ed by mud-brick homes and small busi­ness­es, a local jour­nal­ist who wit­nessed the after­math shook his head as he recount­ed the details. “Just like Sre­breni­ca,” he said.

In Abid­jan, resent­ment played out along sim­i­lar lines. Dis­tricts that were home to a large num­ber of Gbag­bo sup­port­ers, such as the north­ern dis­trict of Yopougon, endured some of the most bru­tal vio­lence. At road­blocks, pro-Gbag­bo fight­ers would iden­ti­fy north­ern­ers, immi­grants, or oth­er per­ceived Ouat­tara sup­port­ers; beat them until they could not longer move; cov­er their bod­ies in tires, wood, and gaso­line; then burn them alive, often leav­ing behind only black­ened con­crete and uniden­ti­fi­able remains. This became known as an “Arti­cle 125” killing — the “125” a ref­er­ence to the 100 francs (18 cents) required for gas and 25 francs for matches.

There is a sec­tion of Yopougon where the ground opens up, form­ing a chasm walled by rocky escarp­ment. At the bot­tom, about 100 meters down, seag­ulls pick through waste com­posed most­ly of tires, emp­ty bot­tles, and sewage. From the begin­ning of Gbag­bo’s failed attempt to remain in office, the pit was “packed with corpses,” recalls Ange Aboua, 25, who lives near the edge of it. Some were Arti­cle 125 vic­tims. Oth­ers had sim­ply been shot and thrown in. After Ouat­tara’s forces took con­trol of the area, the sit­u­a­tion changed lit­tle. Only the vic­tims were different.

Low Thrum Persists

Today, such sto­ries are rare. Though a low thrum of vio­lence per­sists in the west, both in the form of FRCI-led abus­es and cross-bor­der attacks car­ried out by pro-Gbag­bo fight­ers hid­ing in Liberia, Ivory Coast has made the tran­si­tion to a post-con­flict coun­try, frag­ile as it is. As the cur­rent chair­man of the Eco­nom­ic Com­mu­ni­ty of West African States (ECOWAS), Ouat­tara is busy lead­ing efforts to defuse fresh­er con­flicts that have bro­ken out in Guinea-Bis­sau and Mali.

Because of the ongo­ing ICC pro­ceed­ings, as well as the repeat­ed assur­ances from Ouat­tara that all those sus­pect­ed of com­mit­ting crimes will be pros­e­cut­ed, rights groups and oth­er observers tend to peg the suc­cess of the recov­ery to progress on the jus­tice front. But beyond the arrest of Gbag­bo, whose con­fir­ma­tion of charges hear­ing was recent­ly post­poned indef­i­nite­ly, the ICC process seems to have stalled, at least tem­porar­i­ly. Though oth­er high-pro­file sus­pects on the Gbag­bo side, includ­ing his wife, Simone, remain in Ivo­rian cus­tody, no vis­i­ble effort has been made by the ICC to arrest them, spark­ing spec­u­la­tion that Ouat­tara’s admin­is­tra­tion is pri­vate­ly resist­ing addi­tion­al cases.

Ouat­tara has pub­licly affirmed his com­mit­ment to the ICC process, writ­ing two let­ters to Ocam­po accept­ing the court’s juris­dic­tion over some post-elec­tion vio­lence. But gov­ern­ment offi­cials have increas­ing­ly argued that the nation­al jus­tice sys­tem has been reformed to the point where it has the capac­i­ty to fair­ly try cas­es that stem from the fight­ing. In an inter­view in his Abid­jan office, Ouat­tara’s human rights min­is­ter, Gnen­e­ma Coulibaly, embraces this posi­tion. “When Pres­i­dent Gbag­bo was trans­ferred to The Hague, the sit­u­a­tion was such that the jus­tice insti­tu­tions did not have the capac­i­ty even to detain him and keep him in cus­tody, let alone judge him here,” he says. “Gbag­bo even said when he arrived at The Hague that he was feel­ing more at ease and that his liv­ing con­di­tions had improved.”

Much changed in the ensu­ing months, Coulibaly says. “If a state has proven that it has the capac­i­ty to judge its nation­als or who­ev­er com­mits crimes in its ter­ri­to­ry, there is no need for the ICC to inter­vene.” But Ali Ouat­tara (no rela­tion to the pres­i­dent), head of the Ivo­rian Coali­tion for the ICC, says recent judi­cial reforms have been more super­fi­cial than sub­stan­tive, deal­ing main­ly with infra­struc­ture and equip­ment. “When the human rights min­is­ter says he has the capac­i­ty, I think it’s not true,” Ouat­tara says. “It’s not just about buy­ing new judi­cial infra­struc­ture, new courts, new com­put­ers. The reform of jus­tice itself has not begun in Côte d’Ivoire. It’s not about infra­struc­ture. It’s about the penal code itself, about how offi­cials are nom­i­nat­ed, that sort of thing.” He sus­pects the gov­ern­men­t’s posi­tion began to shift once Ocam­po received per­mis­sion from judges in Feb­ru­ary to extend the inves­ti­ga­tion back to 2002 — increas­ing the like­li­hood that fight­ers aligned to Ouat­tara would be targeted.

Regard­less of the motive, Ali Ouat­tara and oth­er observers believe any retreat from the ICC process could be dis­as­trous, as the ICC’s cred­i­bil­i­ty in the eyes of many Ivo­rians hinges on its abil­i­ty, or will­ing­ness, to indict some of the pres­i­den­t’s allies. The cur­rent sit­u­a­tion, with Gbag­bo the only named sus­pect, has left many of his sup­port­ers con­vinced that the sole objec­tive of the ICC has been to remove Ouat­tara’s rival from the coun­try. “It’s dif­fi­cult to know exact­ly what the plan of the gov­ern­ment is,” says an offi­cial with the UN mis­sion in Ivory Coast, who requests anonymi­ty. “Was it just that they want­ed Gbag­bo tak­en away? If they stop at Gbag­bo, they will have no cred­i­bil­i­ty, and it will be a failure.”

One-Sided at Home

The nation­al pro­ceed­ings have also been one-sided. As of June, at least 120 peo­ple sus­pect­ed of com­mit­ting post-elec­tion crimes had been charged — all for­mer Gbag­bo sup­port­ers. Coulibaly, the human rights min­is­ter, explains this dis­crep­an­cy by not­ing that the coun­try’s civil­ian pros­e­cu­tor had been focused on charg­ing eco­nom­ic crimes com­mit­ted against Ouat­tara’s gov­ern­ment — a cat­e­go­ry nat­u­ral­ly lim­it­ed to Gbag­bo sup­port­ers. Oth­er crimes, he says, will be pros­e­cut­ed in accor­dance with the find­ings pro­duced by a nation­al com­mis­sion of inquiry. But this com­mis­sion does not have the con­fi­dence of civ­il soci­ety, in part because most mem­bers were pro­mot­ed by enti­ties under Ouat­tara’s con­trol (mem­bers of Gbag­bo’s Ivo­rian Pop­u­lar Front par­ty were offered posi­tions but turned them down), mean­ing that pro-Gbag­bo civil­ians might be reluc­tant to divulge any abus­es they wit­nessed or expe­ri­enced firsthand.

Post-elec­tion vio­lence cas­es are also being pur­sued at the nation­al mil­i­tary tri­bunal. Ange B. Kessi Kouame, the head of the tri­bunal, says 80 peo­ple have been charged in these cas­es, and 46 are still in cus­tody. He says he’s focus­ing on events involv­ing clear vio­la­tion of mil­i­tary poli­cies and orders. The Duék­oué mas­sacre, how­ev­er, would appear to sug­gest a vio­la­tion of orders, to say noth­ing of gen­er­al mil­i­tary pol­i­cy, rais­ing the ques­tion of whether Kouame intends to inves­ti­gate FRCI Com­man­der Fofana Losséni, who was in charge of forces impli­cat­ed in the mas­sacre. Kouame says his office has received no com­plaints against Losséni. Nor, he adds, have any com­plaints been filed against Com­man­ders Chérif Ous­mane and Ous­mane Coulibaly, two mil­i­tary lead­ers who led oper­a­tions in the Yopougon dis­trict of Abid­jan. It does not appear that com­plaints against these men will be filed any­time soon. Losséni and Ous­mane have been pro­mot­ed since the con­flict end­ed, and Coulibaly retains his post as mil­i­tary commander.

Bring on the Elite

Any resis­tance to the indict­ment of pro-Ouat­tara forces seems to be restrict­ed to the polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary elite. Ordi­nary Ivo­rians, even those who hold Gbag­bo and his loy­al­ists respon­si­ble for the cri­sis, gen­er­al­ly rec­og­nize that mem­bers of the FRCI and oth­er ele­ments of Ouat­tara’s mil­i­tary coali­tion com­mit­ted crimes and deserve to be prosecuted.

There is an obvi­ous rea­son why Ouat­tara would be reluc­tant to allow charges to be brought against mem­bers of the FRCI. The army is made up in large part of for­mer Forces Nou­velles rebels, and if made unhap­py they could poten­tial­ly turn against Ouat­tara. There’s an implic­it threat that those sol­diers who could stand to be pros­e­cut­ed could also stage a coup.

The prob­lem we have is that one year from the vio­lence, it’s only one side that has been indict­ed. We will be at ease if at least some peo­ple from the oth­er side are indict­ed, but that’s not the case so far.”

Sit­ting in a Sene­galese cof­fee stall in the Abid­jan dis­trict of Abobo one after­noon in late April, sev­en young men reflect on the peri­od when the dis­trict was under siege, tak­ing obvi­ous pride in how they man­aged to repel many of the Gbag­bo forces’ advances. “The resis­tance start­ed here. The peo­ple here were the tough­est, the most mil­i­tant,” boasts Zie Kone, a 36-year-old welder dressed in blue jeans and a white T‑shirt cut off at the sleeves. He lists the many abus­es com­mit­ted by Gbag­bo’s fight­ers — tele­vised threats to “wipe out” the area, use of live bul­lets fired at peace­ful demon­stra­tors, deploy­ment of mer­ce­nar­ies. He also defends Ouat­tara’s lead­er­ship dur­ing the peri­od, say­ing the pres­i­dent did what­ev­er he could to resolve the con­flict via peace­ful means. “Alas­sane just defend­ed him­self,” Kone says. “He’s not the one who was attack­ing. He did not order us.” But his feal­ty to the pres­i­dent does not extend to the pro-Ouat­tara fight­ers at the cen­ter of alle­ga­tions put for­ward by rights groups. “We are not con­cerned about what hap­pens to all the peo­ple who came from the rebel­lion to help Ouattara.”

Mean­while, pro-Gbag­bo Ivo­rians describe bal­anced jus­tice as a cru­cial pre­con­di­tion for rec­on­cil­i­a­tion. Gath­ered under a tree beside the Yopougon pit that filled with bod­ies dur­ing the fight­ing, a group of young Gbag­bo sup­port­ers said in an inter­view that they could­n’t pos­si­bly view the process as fair unless pro-Ouat­tara fight­ers were arrest­ed. But that does­n’t mean they see arrests as like­ly. “The prob­lem we have is that one year from the vio­lence, it’s only one side that has been indict­ed,” says Elvis Chris­t­ian, 27. “We will be at ease if at least some peo­ple from the oth­er side are indict­ed, but that’s not the case so far.”

As they wait to see whether the law will catch up to Ouat­tara’s loy­al­ists, these same Gbag­bo sup­port­ers describe grow­ing polit­i­cal ten­sion in the area, mak­ing them reluc­tant to express their views. “The atmos­phere is tense,” Aubain Tehe, 27, says. “Peo­ple are cau­tious. You can­not speak freely. You don’t know what will hap­pen to you.” Ange Aboua agrees, adding, “It is more the pro-Gbag­bo peo­ple who are cau­tious. They don’t trust the government.”

This is exact­ly the sort of neigh­bor­hood-lev­el divi­sion that Ouat­tara says he is intent on address­ing, hav­ing empha­sized the impor­tance of nation­al rec­on­cil­i­a­tion from the moment he took office. Even before the con­flict end­ed, Ouat­tara pledged to form a Truth, Rec­on­cil­i­a­tion, and Dia­logue Com­mis­sion, an implic­it acknowl­edg­ment that legal pro­ceed­ings alone would be insuf­fi­cient to heal nation­al wounds. But when I ask the Gbag­bo sup­port­ers if they are fol­low­ing the progress of this and oth­er rec­on­cil­i­a­tion ini­tia­tives, they laugh. “It is just for TV,” Tehe says. “It’s not for here. It is just for polit­i­cal reasons.”

Police and Jus­tice for All

Ouat­tara has been repeat­ing promis­es that jus­tice will be admin­is­tered to all per­pe­tra­tors of post-elec­tion crimes. In April, dur­ing his first offi­cial vis­it to the west­ern region of Ivory Coast, he deliv­ered a mes­sage of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion to an audi­ence in Duék­oué. But observers such as Mau­rice Gilles, a French aid work­er and Yopougon res­i­dent who remained in his embat­tled neigh­bor­hood through­out the cri­sis, down­play the vis­it’s sig­nif­i­cance. “If the rec­on­cil­i­a­tion process con­sists only of big ral­lies and big cer­e­monies, it will not be effi­cient,” Gilles points out. “Peo­ple need to feel the rec­on­cil­i­a­tion in every­day life. The way the police­man treats them when they go to resolve a dis­pute, whether peo­ple black­mail them sim­ply because they have guns and can do that.”

Rinal­do Depagne, senior West Africa ana­lyst for the Inter­na­tion­al Cri­sis Group, believes that, when it comes to rec­on­cil­i­a­tion, chang­ing the way Ivo­rians from all sides relate to secu­ri­ty offi­cials is just as impor­tant as pro­vid­ing bal­anced jus­tice for post-elec­tion crimes. This is espe­cial­ly true in the nation’s west­ern regions, where police and gen­darmes have not been empow­ered to resume full polic­ing duties, leav­ing the FRCI to fill the void. In May, police and gen­darmes in Duék­oué and oth­er west­ern towns were still not allowed to car­ry arms, mak­ing it impos­si­ble for them to take the lead on polic­ing operations.

Kone Daou­da, the local FRCI com­man­der in Duék­oué, defends his armed sol­diers. He says they had suc­cess­ful­ly tak­en con­trol of a region rife with anti-gov­ern­ment mili­tias and Liber­ian mer­ce­nar­ies and faced no choice but to force­ful­ly dri­ve them out. “If we had wait­ed for all of the nec­es­sary means to do the job, the job would not have been com­plet­ed,” he says. “We dealt with what we had.” Daou­da acknowl­edges this process was not always clean. “I’m not going to say there are no extra­ju­di­cial killings or human rights vio­la­tions,” he admits. “I try my best to keep those cas­es under con­trol, to min­i­mize them.”

To under­score the con­tin­u­ing secu­ri­ty chal­lenges in the area, he pro­duces a gris­ly pho­to of his body­guard, who along with anoth­er sol­dier was abduct­ed and killed in late March. The pho­to shows the body­guard’s corpse on a black tarp, his gen­i­tals cut off, and his head cut open. The brain has been removed. “He was abduct­ed by the youth of this area and killed,” Daou­da says, sug­gest­ing that the FRCI would not be revis­ing its tac­tics for track­ing down anti-gov­ern­ment fight­ers any­time soon. “We’re man­ag­ing to cap­ture some, then there are some who may leave the area. But from house to house, they’re try­ing to come back. We do what­ev­er’s nec­es­sary to make sure that does­n’t happen.”

The most hard-line Ouat­tara sup­port­ers fail to see how the gov­ern­ment is con­tribut­ing to polit­i­cal ten­sion — how biased jus­tice and malfea­sance by secu­ri­ty forces are pre­vent­ing a sus­tain­able peace. Many of these sup­port­ers, includ­ing high-lev­el offi­cials, place the blame for lin­ger­ing ani­mos­i­ty square­ly at the feet of Gbag­bo’s fol­low­ers, who they say are not ready to rec­on­cile and still can’t accept that their pres­i­dent was defeat­ed at the polls. “It is dif­fi­cult to go into a rec­on­cil­i­a­tion process when peo­ple who have com­mit­ted crimes do not accept respon­si­bil­i­ty,” says Coulibaly, the human rights min­is­ter. “When peo­ple will accept respon­si­bil­i­ty and jus­tice has passed, maybe we can com­pen­sate the vic­tims and ask for forgiveness.”

Next Steps

Per­haps the most cru­cial imme­di­ate step would be to expe­dite a reform of secu­ri­ty forces, an essen­tial ingre­di­ent for rec­on­cil­i­a­tion at the local lev­el. In April, the UN Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil autho­rized excep­tions to the coun­try’s arms embar­go, a move intend­ed to sup­port train­ing of mil­i­tary and secu­ri­ty forces. With the help of donors who have long cit­ed secu­ri­ty reform as a top pri­or­i­ty, the Ouat­tara admin­is­tra­tion should train and equip an effec­tive police force as soon as pos­si­ble. There are obvi­ous obsta­cles. For­mer Forces Nou­velles rebels who have since been incor­po­rat­ed into the FRCI see broad swaths of the civil­ian pop­u­la­tion in south­ern Ivory Coast as the ene­my, and the enmi­ty is often mutu­al. As a result, the mil­i­tary will nat­u­ral­ly be reluc­tant to give up its polic­ing pow­ers. But giv­en the fre­quen­cy of Ivo­rians’ inter­ac­tion with secu­ri­ty forces, con­struc­tive secu­ri­ty reforms could do more to unite the coun­try than any polit­i­cal move.

To avoid vio­lence in the future, Ivory Coast needs a mean­ing­ful jus­tice process — a clear hold­ing to account of those who fueled the recent destruc­tion. This means aban­don­ing claims that the nation­al jus­tice sys­tem is equipped to han­dle the most high-pro­file cas­es stem­ming from the post-elec­tion cri­sis. Even if these claims are accu­rate and the con­vic­tion shared by many that recent reforms have been super­fi­cial is off the mark, Gbag­bo sup­port­ers would view local tri­als of their lead­ers as evi­dence of Ouat­tara going after his ene­mies to con­sol­i­date pow­er. Recent state­ments, includ­ing those from Human Rights Min­is­ter Gnen­e­ma Coulibaly, sug­gest, unfor­tu­nate­ly, that the Ouat­tara admin­is­tra­tion may take this very path.

Though all indict­ments and poten­tial indict­ments at The Hague so far are on Gbag­bo’s side, there is lit­tle doubt that ICC pros­e­cu­tors intend to indict Ouat­tara loy­al­ists even­tu­al­ly. The big ques­tion is whether Ouat­tara’s gov­ern­ment will coop­er­ate and fos­ter a process of bal­anced jus­tice at home so that the courts are seen as even-hand­ed at every level.

Coun­tries have gen­er­al­ly found that there are no con­se­quences for shun­ning the ICC. To cite just one exam­ple, not only does Sudanese Pres­i­dent Omar Has­san al-Bashir remain in pow­er, there is mount­ing evi­dence that he is freely over­see­ing new atroc­i­ties in the Nuba Moun­tains (along with Ahmed Haroun, the local gov­er­nor and a fel­low ICC sus­pect). Oth­er African coun­tries nonethe­less con­tin­ue to defend him. After Joyce Ban­da, the pres­i­dent of Malawi, threat­ened to arrest Bashir if he were to attend the African Union’s July sum­mit, orig­i­nal­ly sched­uled to be held in Lilong­we, the body prompt­ly moved the sum­mit to Ethiopia. How can coun­tries that have, in many cas­es, will­ing­ly joined the court dis­miss it so eas­i­ly? The answer can be found, at least in part, in the rela­tion­ship between the court and major play­ers in the inter­na­tion­al community.

The Amer­i­can posi­tion on the court has evolved from out­right dis­dain in the ear­ly years of George W. Bush to cyn­i­cism under Oba­ma. The Unit­ed States now sup­ports the court when the court’s work advances Amer­i­can inter­ests. The Unit­ed States is still not a mem­ber of the court, how­ev­er. Nor are Rus­sia and Chi­na, the two coun­tries cur­rent­ly block­ing sub­stan­tive attempts by the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty to pre­vent fur­ther car­nage in Syr­ia. The two oth­er per­ma­nent mem­bers of the UN Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil have been bet­ter friends to the court, but they, too, have at times worked counter to its inter­ests. Last year, both Britain and France came out in favor of a “zero growth” bud­get strat­e­gy that many observers said would have harmed an insti­tu­tion already stretched thin. This seemed espe­cial­ly puz­zling giv­en that both were staunch sup­port­ers of the court’s inter­ven­tion in Libya, an endeav­or that forced the court to tap its con­tin­gency fund.

By oper­at­ing above inter­na­tion­al law, or pur­su­ing bud­get poli­cies that would seem to under­mine it, major pow­ers are set­ting an exam­ple of con­de­scen­sion toward the ICC that oth­er coun­tries choose to fol­low at their con­ve­nience. Unless these same pow­ers take active steps toward sign­ing onto the ICC, or at least giv­ing it suf­fi­cient resources to do its work, it is unrea­son­able to blame the court for fail­ing to solve intractable prob­lems in Ivory Coast and wher­ev­er else its man­date may take it.

Research sup­port was pro­vided by The Inves­tiga­tive Fund at The Nation Institute

The orig­i­nal ver­sion of this arti­cle can be found here. A ver­sion host­ed by The Inves­tiga­tive Fund at The Nation Insti­tute can be found here.

Source URL: http://robbiecoreyboulet.com/2012/08/victors-justice/