UN Military Forces Supercede Ivory Coast's Sovereignty by Josiah Cantrall 7 Apr 2011 post a comment Share This: The UN's blatant disregard for state sovereignty and its decision to choose a winner is outrageous. With the advance of rebel forces, on Monday U.N. peacekeepers and French troops launched it's own military offensive against Ivory Coast President, Laurent Gbagbo. By Tuesday negotiations had begun for his surrender. Media bias has effectively painted Gbagbo as a murderous strongman who refuses to accept electoral defeat. This stance is only credible when vital facts are omitted. A former French colony, the Ivory coast is the world's leading cocoa producer with gas and oil sales to Russia are considered of even greater value. Gbagbo insists France is a bully trying to increase their historical interests in his country. In last November's elections, the Ivory Coast Independent Electoral Commission declared Alassane Quattara victor. However, as in the United States, the Ivory Coast's Supreme Court is the ultimate electoral arbitrator. After reviewing ballots and finding rampant voter fraud from sections of the country controlled by Quattara's forces, per their Constitutional authority, they declared Gbagbo the true winner. Reportedly the independent electoral commission is compromised of Quattara supporters, and the Supreme Court is dominated by Gbagbo's friends. Though both claims are hard to substantiate, there is a key difference in the two rulings. Unlike the independent commission, the unanimous Supreme Court decision cites clear and specific evidence of voter fraud, including 500 polling stations that didn't count a single vote for Gbagbo. We have no reason to believe voter fraud didn't occur. A Reuters report revealed Quattara banned European Union representatives from observing poll stations in segments of the country controlled by rebel forces. Despite this, the United States, France and the European Union superseded the Ivory Coast's constitution and recognized Quattara as President. Both entities have admittedly never read the courts ruling. At the time, Gbagbo claimed support from Mexico, South Africa, China, Russia, Brazil and Angola. Before UN and French military might sealed his fate, Gbagbo plead with the international community to, “Come and see the truth. Come and do a re-count.” More controversy revolves around the vast atrocities and war crimes committed by Quattara's military, which may have been trained and armed by radical Islamic militants. In a country whose population is upwards 40% Muslim, Gbagbo's bold, Christian faith is a pivotal issue. The UN's actions have now given Islamic rebel forces control over one of Africa's largest Christian populations. A UN report claims Gbagbo's faction is also guilty of torture and devastation, yet the report fails to reveal its authors and produce concrete evidence. In Gbabbo's own words, “ In 2000, when I was elected, it was the same scenario. They invented a tale about mass graves, blaming me for them. I ordered an investigation and we had an inquiry. We had a trial and the gendarmes who were accused were acquitted.” Americans lack of interest may prove to be a costly and puzzling oversight. We faced a similar situation back in 2000 when the United States Supreme Court heard Bush vs. Gore. If the UN has the authority to disregard the Ivory Coast's Supreme Court, can it treat ours the same? Obviously America's superpower status prevented UN interference 2000, but if our military might was the only thing blocking them, the world has simply become a strongarm game where universal rights no longer exist. President Obama's steadfast support of the United Nation's disdain for state sovereignty and democratic constitutions is alarming. It begs the question, if the United Nations starts treating America like the Ivory Coast, who will Obama side with?