French Actions in African Nation: Is the Standard Too High?

[Hurkyl]

In the past week, the French have wiped out the entire air force of an African nation and wounded hundreds of protesters. (several dead)


There seem to be obvious parallels between this and the frequent criticisms of Israel vs the Palestinians, and the US vs Iraqis. Are the French acting as evil as people claim Israel and the US to be, or maybe people are holding the US and Israel to an impossibly high standard?

 

[motai]

It is interesting that this came up, this is the first reference I saw about the French and the african nation of the Ivory Coast since I heard it originally on NPR. None of the major American news media corporations mentioned anything about it.

 

[GENIERE]

In the past week, the French have wiped out the entire air force of an African nation ?

Wow! The French did that without help? Was there any collateral damage like dead innocent babies? Why would any nation wish to rid itself of the French, the moral leaders of the free world, the elite of the elite, the most equal of the equals... Woe is me. Woe is me.

 

[Gokul43201]

In the past week, the French have wiped out the entire air force of an African nation and wounded hundreds of protesters. (several dead)

I find this description extremely misleading.

The Ivoirian Air Force attacked a French military base - by any definition, an act of war - killing French peacekeepers and an American civilian. France retaliated by destroying most of the country's military aircraft. But did not harm any civilians in the process.

Over the next 4 days, Government loyalists (sparked by State-owned radio and TV broadcasts which did nothing but fan anti-French rage) rioted all across Abidjan, destroying French homes and businesses. The UN warned the Ivory Coast govt to stop these broadcasts, but to no avail. Refering to these rioters as "protesters" is grossly insincere.

French and UN peacekeepers are monitoring a cease-fire between the northern-based rebels and government forces in the Ivory Coast.

 

[GENIERE]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1100059902779&apage=1
Initially at least, yesterday’s demonstration seemed peaceful, yet the tone was fiercely anti-French.

The stream of demonstrators converged on the city’s high-rise business district.

Some greeted a carload of Westerners with pro-American slogans. Others carried American flags and signs saying: "Please help us, Bush" and "France Bye Bye, In USA We Trust."

 

[Smurf]

Why would any nation wish to rid itself of the French, the moral leaders of the free world, the elite of the elite, the most equal of the equals... Woe is me. Woe is me.

*cough* Deja vous anyone?

 

[Smurf]

Ivory Coast's "government is pushing to kill white people - not just the French, all white people," said Marie Noel Mion, rescued in a wooden boat at daybreak and waiting with hundreds of others at Abidjan's airport, some camped in tents on the floor of the airport terminal.

"The people here have lost everything - their houses, their companies, everything," said one man, a Belgian businessman who said he was leaving after 23 years and not coming back. "After 23 years in Ivory Coast, I have 60 kilograms of luggage and a dog."

The French are not the aggressors here and it's time you conformist pigs started realising just because it's French doesn't mean its bad.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hit your button? Shoe on the other foot?

Maybe you should look into the decision process that led the US to attack Iraq. If you look past partisan rhetoric it was not unreasonable. Yes intelligence was misused, but beyond all the debates it was still thinkable that Saddam might have nuclear weapons.

 

[tumor]

In the past week, the French have wiped out the entire air force of an African nation and wounded hundreds of protesters. (several dead)


There seem to be obvious parallels between this and the frequent criticisms of Israel vs the Palestinians, and the US vs Iraqis. Are the French acting as evil as people claim Israel and the US to be, or maybe people are holding the US and Israel to an impossibly high standard?

French were attacked and 8 of them were killed!French soldiers are part of UN forces, and they are not "evil" occupiers.
There are no parralles whatsoever,don't post stupid **** OK!

 

[GENIERE]

...they are not "evil" occupiers...

What kind of occupiers are they?

 

[Smurf]

They're not occupiers, they just had a military base or two, (the americans have 20x as many military bases in other countries)

 

[Smurf]

Hit your button? Shoe on the other foot?

Maybe you should look into the decision process that led the US to attack Iraq. If you look past partisan rhetoric it was not unreasonable. Yes intelligence was misused, but beyond all the debates it was still thinkable that Saddam might have nuclear weapons.

If it was at any time likely saddam had WMD the UN would have gave the go-ahead. It didn't. Assuming that he DID have WMD though:
SO...DO...YOU (thus bringing up the implication that they wouldn't use them against the US as they would ultimatly destroy themselves - don't say saddam would do it because he didn't care about his own people, even if he was willing to lose half of iraqs population he didnt want to lose the whole frikkin country), the only threat that Iraq posed against america with WMD was that they would be able to prevent the US from invading them (which would be horrible, your right, you win)

 

[russ_watters]

They're not occupiers, they just had a military base or two, (the americans have 20x as many military bases in other countries)

How many bases, per capita, are required to be considered an "occupier"?

 

[Smurf]

If you want to define it that way then tell me how many nations the US is occupying?

But I don't want to define it that way, I want to define it by how much they interfere with that nation, as opposed to merely having a military prescence.

 

[russ_watters]

In any case, I see a parallel (a double-standard) here as well. If the French want to have their little war, they're welcome to it - but when fighting a just war for your own self-interest, you shouldn't criticize others who do the same.

But as people say about Iraq: there are other countries that also require military intervention. The US wants to fix other similar problems (Sudan). By only acting when their own interests are at stake, France proves the double-standard.

 

[Hurkyl]

I find this description extremely misleading.

I will admit to doing it intentionally. This sort of misleading reporting has been commonplace for, say, the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, at least on these forums. Since I expected those same people to side with the French here, I thought I might take this opportunity to demonstrate how ridiculous such one-sided reporting can be.

For the record, I find the French response reasonable. There's nothing wrong with a retaliatory strike to impair the enemy's ability to continue fighting. (Compare with criticisms of Israel -- they aren't allowed to do anything to Palestineans, nevermind the terrorism!) And when a crowd of hostile citizens marches on military forces, of course people are going to get hurt (again, think Israel).


And the French didn't just "have a base" there: the French presence was specifically to exert military control over the area. (to enforce a cease-fire)

(Oh, another parallel -- Côte d'Ivoire was the most economically powerful West African nation... maybe the French were just after the cocoa!)

 

[vanesch]

What kind of occupiers are they?

UN peacekeepers.
What happens is that they are supposed to overview an agreement signed between the rebellion forces and president Bakbot (sp?). This agreement is backed up by the UN and the troops are there in order to avoid a civil war.
The French troops are there with a UN mandate AND a mandate of a union of African nations to avoid clashes between the rebellion forces and the regular army ; but the president makes his followers believe that the French are on the rebellion side (just as some rebellion leaders say that the French are on the gouvernment side). They are also there to protect the white people who are more and more under racist attacks ; several western countries advise their citizens to leave the country.
For no special reason, the French got bombed by the regular air force and 9 soldiers were killed (which consists of just a few airplanes and a few helicopters), so they replied by destroying all those planes (as far as I know, there weren't any casualties). Now the president says that he didn't give the order to bomb the French, but that's of course bull****: they wouldn't have acted without orders.

 

[vanesch]

I will admit to doing it intentionally. This sort of misleading reporting has been commonplace for, say, the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, at least on these forums. Since I expected those same people to side with the French here, I thought I might take this opportunity to demonstrate how ridiculous such one-sided reporting can be.

I will agree with you that I "defended" much more the Palestinians here than the Israelis, but that is because in general, the Israelis are pictured as the "good" and the Palestinians as the "bad" guys. The Israelis have "military force and protect their people" and the Palestinians have "terrorists attacking civilian targets". I think they're on the same level, honestly. Have you read the contribution of a Palestinian here recently (Bilal) ?

What I find shocking is that the US (lacking any other argument) invasion proponents now say that the fact that Saddam gave money to the widows and children of Palestian "terrorists" was a good reason to go and bomb his country. Don't you see that such stupid argument can then be used by all Arabs to attack Western targets because they give aid to Israel ?
As I say, in this conflict both parties are equally guilty/right. Only, one party has an army a country and US support, the other one has terrorists, a territory and Arab support.

 

[plover]

Are the US and Israel are being compared to "an impossibly high standard", or are they criticized for keeping to low standards? For example, in the case of Israeli retaliation, such strikes would have a different meaning in the context of efforts that showed some respect toward the general Palestinian population, as opposed to building a wall along a path that divides Palestinians from their fields and appropriates territory that on the grounds that I'm aware of should be considered Palestinian. It seems unlikely that much of anyone argues that the Israelis shouldn't defend themselves, but in the context of the progressive ghettoization of the Palestinians, the border between justifiable defense and the enforcement of oppressive policies becomes blurred.

 

[Gokul43201]

Before the Iraq War, US and British planes (mostly F-16s with EA-6Bs) were enforcing the UN mandated no-fly zones. I'm not sure about the British policy, but in accordance with US DoD guidelines, every time a US aircraft was tracked by an Iraqi SAM, the F-16 pilot shot down the SAM. Every time a fighter was tracked by an Iraqi plane that violated the no-fly boundary, there is no question that this plane would get shot down. You didn't have to wait to be fired on first (as some here may have made it seem), and I agree that that would be plain stupid.

The safety of the enforcers was essential, and nobody complained (and rightly so) that the US was destroying Iraqi mobile SAMs (which of course, take people to drive and operate) and Iraqi fighter aircraft. Nobody should.

It is to this that I see the closest parallel, as far as the French situation is concerned...not the War against Iraq, which is completely different from a strategic, tactical, political and ideological point of view.

 

[Aquamarine]

Are the US and Israel are being compared to "an impossibly high standard", or are they criticized for keeping to low standards? For example, in the case of Israeli retaliation, such strikes would have a different meaning in the context of efforts that showed some respect toward the general Palestinian population, as opposed to building a wall along a path that divides Palestinians from their fields and appropriates territory that on the grounds that I'm aware of should be considered Palestinian. It seems unlikely that much of anyone argues that the Israelis shouldn't defend themselves, but in the context of the progressive ghettoization of the Palestinians, the border between justifiable defense and the enforcement of oppressive policies becomes blurred.

There is certainly a double standard. The US and Israel are democracies and allow relatively free reporting. The countries with the worst violations allow no free journalists and are therefore ignored in the media.

Freedom House today released its annual list of the world's most repressive nations before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Five of the fifteen countries are members of the UN body, which is charged with monitoring and condemning human rights violations.

The report, titled "The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies, 2004," includes detailed summations of the dire human rights situations Burma, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Chechnya, Tibet, and Western Sahara are included as territories under Russian, Chinese, and Moroccan jurisdiction respectively.

While not ranking among the world's most repressive, an additional eight countries Freedom House rates as "Not Free" enjoy membership on the Commission. They include Bhutan, Egypt, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Swaziland, Togo, and Zimbabwe. Together, "Not Free" countries comprise one quarter of the Commission's membership.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/040204.htm

 

[studentx]

I will agree with you that I "defended" much more the Palestinians here than the Israelis, but that is because in general, the Israelis are pictured as the "good" and the Palestinians as the "bad" guys.

You believe world opinion favors the Israelis?

 

[gravenewworld]

The French are some of the most vile people on Earth. They criticize the US involvement in Iraq, but they themselves have killed hundreds and thousands, if not millions of people under their imperialist movements. The French burned people alive in the street for no reason in Algeria as well as slaughtering thousands in other African nations.

 

[Smurf]

Gravenewworld, the French criticize the US for its current Foreign Policy, as does most of the world. It's unfair to say they are hipocrites because of their past, they're not proud of it and they're not denying it. There's no doubt the French have done bad things in the past, but they've changed their foreign policy, as has Britain (which was even more oppressive than france in some colonies), Such behaviour was the norm in colonial africa.

 

[plover]

There is certainly a double standard. The US and Israel are democracies and allow relatively free reporting. The countries with the worst violations allow no free journalists and are therefore ignored in the media.

Your meaning is unclear to me here. It seems like you are saying that holding the US and Israel to higher standards than regimes with dreadful human rights records is unfair. I assume that is not what you intended though.

 

[Aquamarine]

Your meaning is unclear to me here. It seems like you are saying that holding the US and Israel to higher standards than regimes with dreadful human rights records is unfair. I assume that is not what you intended though.

No, that is what I am saying. Why should there be less criticism of regimes with much, much worse human rights violations? For that is what is happening. It seems that the censorships of the dictarships are working and the media avoids mentioning their crimes. It is outright dangerous since it gives the impression that dictatorships are preferable.

 

[Smurf]

-Why is there less criticism of regimes with much worse human rights violations?

The answer is different for each regime, a number of times the specific regime has not agreed on the geneva convention, therefor cannot be held to it's rules. (although they often are).

There is also the aspect of allegiance, often times dictatorships will be set up as puppet governments for a larger power, in which case that larger power will not publicize the crimes of that regime.

This is most obvious in the case of Noreiga. For the first part of his reign he barely got a blurb on CNN and the times he was mentioned it was not to report his crimes, after he disobeyed washington all his crimes were suddenly all over the news who's drug trafficking was causing suffering world wide.

Is there a specific regime you were thinking about?

It is outright dangerous since it gives the impression that dictatorships are preferable.

I hardly think this is a 'threat' to American society, the amount of pro-democratic propaganda in schools and media is more than enough to counter this.

 

[Aquamarine]

Is there a specific regime you were thinking about?

Most of the crimes of countries mentioned here are never mentioned in the media:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/040204.htm

 

[Smurf]

I havn't finished reading it but it really depends on what you define as human rights violations, it seems to me that a lot of that is denying certain freedoms that the US (and therefor the UN) is so patriotic about, not everyone puts that at the top of their list of human rights.

*cough*check out this title:
Freedom House Executive Director

 

[Smurf]

Finished reading now, this seems to be mainly about freedoms. Not the worst violation of human rights in my opinion, this is just another attempt to push western ideals on other cultures.